# British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'



## hipipol (Feb 14, 2019)

IS schoolgirl 'wants to return to UK'
It seems she has no regrets merely wants her child born in the UK
Tho not a Daily Fail reader, I find it well difficult to argue for charitable treatment in her case
Opinions?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 14, 2019)

I don't know all the specifics of her case, but her unborn kid will be legally British and has the right to grow up in the UK, even if it ends up not being in her care.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2019)

hipipol said:


> IS schoolgirl 'wants to return to UK'
> It seems she has no regrets merely wants her child born in the UK
> Tho not a Daily Fail reader, I find it well difficult to argue for charitable treatment in her case
> Opinions?


I guess she has the legal right to come back to the UK but its hard to muster any sympathy for her given the choices she made.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

Maybe she has seen the error of her ways. If allowed back, it will help show, amongst other things, how compassionate we can be. Would Is allow her back or will they detain her or murder her?


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 14, 2019)

No airline is going to let her fly when she's nine months pregnant - maybe they could bring her back on a military child, which would be the compassionate thing to do for the sake of the baby, though of course there's no way they would ever let her keep it.


----------



## wiskey (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Maybe she has seen the error of her ways


That wasn't the impression I got from reading the article.


----------



## Smick (Feb 14, 2019)

She went out there at the age of fifteen, is only nineteen now. I would be inclined to treat her compassionately based on her making poor decisions as a kid, something we have all done. 

Her lack of regret only shows her naivety. 

Single motherhood as a teenager in Bethnal Green isn't going to be a bed of roses.


----------



## rutabowa (Feb 14, 2019)

I thought this thread was about the UK cancelling article 50


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 14, 2019)

Probably isn't going to help her case that she apparently waited until about 24 hours before the fall of the last ISIS stronghold to throw herself on the mercy of British authorities.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 14, 2019)

She was just a vulnerable kid when she went over there and isn't much more than that now. She will have been subjected to a lot of propaganda etc so it's no surprise that she is yet ready or able to admit what she did is fucked. I would say let her back and offer therapy and support so she can heal and her baby can have a chance at the life it deserves.


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2019)

hipipol said:


> IS schoolgirl 'wants to return to UK'
> It seems she has no regrets merely wants her child born in the UK
> Tho not a Daily Fail reader, I find it well difficult to argue for charitable treatment in her case
> Opinions?


The article doesn't say she wants her child born in the UK, merely that she wants to return for the child's benefit. She has already had two children who died in infancy.

She's a young woman who did something very stupid at the age of 15. She probably hasn't yet come to terms with that yet, and she and her child will need plenty of support to sort their lives out.

As far as I am aware, she is still a British citizen, but whatever her legal status, I really can't see why compassion shouldn't be extended to her.


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Feb 14, 2019)

She is still with IS isn't she? So she is hardly going to start criticising IS...while still in their presence.....this may be her only way out of the mess she is in.
Once back in the UK  she and her baby will be relatively safe.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

So, who wants to sit next to her on the tube?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

Oh come on. Not every young mum, not every Muslim, not every person who has been to a Muslim country or Syria is a terrorist


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Oh come on. Not every young mum, not every Muslim, not every person who has been to a Muslim country or Syria is a terrorist



Um, have you read the story?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

Hearty clickbait fare.

Get tons of people piling in saying ‘fuck her’ ‘she’s made her bed’ etc, and then liberals who normally don’t like nationhood and borders piling in to assert her rights due to her nationality. Bingo.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

I have read one take on it. No where does it infer that she was directly involved in terrorism nor does it infer she wants to carry out a terrorist act...but I have just finished a night shift and am tired, so I may have missed that bit.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Oh come on. Not every young mum, not every Muslim, not every person who has been to a Muslim country or Syria is a terrorist



People who travel thousands of miles to join IS, who walk past bins full of the severed heads of 'enemys of Islam' without a flicker - do you fancy sitting next to them on the tube?

Have you actually read the interview she's given, or did you stop thinking when you got to 'schoolgirl'?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

What has she done wrong?


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> What has she done wrong?


 Happily joined daesh and not regretted it.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

To be fair she’s upset at ‘underground corruption’ undermining the caliphate so at least she’s a purist religious head the ball.


----------



## Johnny Doe (Feb 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> ‘underground corruption’



Why do people keep going on about the tube?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

Harry Smiles said:


> Why do people keep going on about the tube?



I’m from Birmingham so didn’t realise she was talking about the TFL contract....


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 14, 2019)

Not saying she deserves no compassion whatsover, but she definitely seems more like a vile human being than a wayward teen who just made a few bad choices - living in Raqqa as the wife of a foreign fighter, she would surely have been aware of atrocities like the enslavement of Yazidi women and children, would not have been unusual for her to have had a slave in her home.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

At best she will require a lot of surveillance her moral code is different to the UK norm. 
Warcrimes slavery fine if they are the Kuffar. 

Can't see her keeping her kid because nobody  first suicide vest Turing up at preschool.


----------



## jusali (Feb 14, 2019)

It's a tough one, my compassionate side would say bring her home.
However, as has been said there seems to be no shame and even a touch of pride that she joined daesh.
She seems to want all her rights without accepting her responsibilities.
personally I don't know what to think!


----------



## Plumdaff (Feb 14, 2019)

It's not an easy call. 

She's British. Her soon to be born child is an innocent. So bring her home, offer her compassion, offer a home for her child - possibly with her immediate family rather than her if that is needed to protect them - but also investigate, monitor and prosecute her if enough evidence can be found of crime.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 14, 2019)

In this age of deportations and hostile environments, I'd be wary of her citizenship being stripped etc. That said, I don't condone her choices as a 15 year old. But I don't wish ill on her.


----------



## wiskey (Feb 14, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> Probably isn't going to help her case that she apparently waited until about 24 hours before the fall of the last ISIS stronghold to throw herself on the mercy of British authorities.


This is what I keep coming back to, she didn't ask to come back for the benefit of either of her other children ... Can't help but wonder if she wouldn't be happy staying if ISIS wasn't about to be booted out of the last village. But then a lot of people in the camp she's in were part of ISIS until last week  I doubt she's the only one trying to come 'home' .


----------



## Dan U (Feb 14, 2019)

Even if she does want to come back she has to find her way to somewhere with UK consular assistance. She is in a refugee camp in a failed state, not sure any civil servant will be rushing out with some forms to fill in.


----------



## newbie (Feb 14, 2019)

There are at least 7 British women and 15 or so children in that camp, according to the journo on the radio yesterday.  I don't see how making them stateless helps anything or anyone, which implies they should get consular assistance to return here, once they've served any jail terms elsewhere.  When they're here there are plenty of laws that can be used to lock them up or restrict their movements, and to take their children into care.


----------



## Smick (Feb 14, 2019)

jusali said:


> It's a tough one, my compassionate side would say bring her home.
> However, as has been said there seems to be no shame and even a touch of pride that she joined daesh.
> She seems to want all her rights without accepting her responsibilities.
> personally I don't know what to think!


It's not lack of shame, but she sees what she had as a normal life which is troubling. But that's common for people in abnormal circumstances. People in the most miserable lives have bad days and days which they enjoy. It just becomes life. Even in our society emergency services people see dead bodies then go home and try not to dwell on the negatives.

She is on her third pregnancy at 19 and has lost two children. There's no doubt in my mind that she is a victim who has been used and abused. 

I think she'd need a lot of rehabilitation, due to the danger that she might pose, but I think she should be helped.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2019)

Dan U said:


> Even if she does want to come back she has to find her way to somewhere with UK consular assistance. She is in a refugee camp in a failed state, not sure any civil servant will be rushing out with some forms to fill in.


Yep, and I'd imagine that returning to the UK is the action most likely to result in separation of mother and child (when born). If her priority is to be with the child it would seem that the refugee camp is the better option in the short-term.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

The UK govt aren't going to bring her home as the article states.
"Security minister Ben Wallace said he could not comment on Ms Begum's case for legal reasons but said any Britons who had gone to Syria to engage or support terrorist activities should be prepared to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted if they came back to the UK.

He said there was no consular assistance in Syria so any Briton wanting help would need to find consular services elsewhere in the region.

Asked whether the government would be rushing to bring home people such as Ms Begum, he said: "I'm not putting at risk British people's lives to go and look for terrorists or former terrorists in a failed state."

He added that while the UK had a duty of care to children of Britons in Syria, he also had a duty towards all UK citizens and would do what was "proportionate and necessary" to keep people safe.

Sir Peter Fahy, a retired senior police chief who led the Prevent terrorism prevention programme at the time the girls ran away, said if Ms Begum did return to the UK, the authorities would first detain her and investigate whether there was enough evidence to mount a prosecution.

He said he could understand why the government was "not particularly interested" in facilitating her return.

"If the woman was showing complete remorse, it would be completely different," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

He said it would cost a "vast amount of money" and the biggest challenge would be for local police to keep her safe.

They would have to ensure she did not become a lightning rod for both right-wing extremists and Islamic extremists and did not try to justify her position and actions, he added."

So unless she gets to a tstate with UK consular representation, that's that. Unless you think the UK should send people in to retrieve her? (I do not.)


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

My compassionomitor isn't ticking over much for this one, I have to say. I mean i'ts obviously sad she's lost children but thousands of children have been killed and or abused over there and they had no plane to get on.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> He said it would cost a "vast amount of money" and the biggest challenge would be for local police to keep her safe.



We can only guess at what Tommeh/YVUK protests at return to Bethnal Green would precipitate.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

It would be illuminating to give her a choice of a) having her child returned to the UK, fostered and then adopted, with her left to rot in Syria, or b) they can both rot in Syria...

She didn't cry out for rescue when her first child died, nor the second one. She didn't cry out for rescue when she saw Yazidi women and children being herded into the snow to die of hypothermia, she didn't cry out for rescue when she learned that her 'housemaid' was a trafficked, raped slave - yes, _slave_, with chains around her neck and the business - I rather bet she wouldn't take the offer because she'd know that without the child, no one will give a shit about her...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Hearty clickbait fare.
> 
> Get tons of people piling in saying ‘fuck her’ ‘she’s made her bed’ etc, and then liberals who normally don’t like nationhood and borders piling in to assert her rights due to her nationality. Bingo.



Telling that the liberal version of 'kindness' in this case involves taking a newborn from its mother forever.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Telling that the liberal version of 'kindness' in this case involves taking a newborn from its mother forever.



Not sure that life in a Syrian camp is going to be any better for the child's prospects either. Especially if the mother gets murdered by someone pissed off with the Islamists.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Telling that the liberal version of 'kindness' in this case involves taking a newborn from its mother forever.



As opposed to leaving it to rot in Syria, or vapour using it with a 500lb bomb, yeah, kindness is a good word.

What kind do of life do you foresee it having with its mpther?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 14, 2019)

Sorry, there's clearly a good option here that I'm completely missing. What was it again?


----------



## miss direct (Feb 14, 2019)

I wonder how hard it would be for her to get to Turkey and go to a British consulate or embassy there.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

She's a British Citizen, we can't stop her from returning home, so long as she can get here, (the state has no obligation to assist her travels). There was talk about all returning ISIS members being prosecuted, would have thought that this would apply to her too (although this suggests that only a fraction have been nicked: Just one in ten British jihadis have been prosecuted on return to UK ). 

It would seem sensible to jail her and whilst incarcerated to attempt to engage her in a programme of de-radicalisation. Some hope with the state of our prisons I guess.

I would imagine her baby should be removed from her by social services, as they would any parent/carer who would be raising a child in a manner likely to be of determent to the child?


----------



## marshall (Feb 14, 2019)

Of course she should be allowed home, there's nothing to be gained by letting her rot in Syria other than a 'fuck you, you made your own bed' sense of satisfaction, but there are plenty of pluses in letting her come back and working out the 'whys'. 

Who knows, she could prove invaluable in the long-term.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So, who wants to sit next to her on the tube?



If she's nine months pregnant or with a small child, I hope I'd the decency to offer her my seat


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

marshall said:


> ...here are plenty of pluses in letting her come back and working out the 'whys'.



List five of them.


----------



## klang (Feb 14, 2019)

maybe we should set up a caliphate within Britain to keep all the returnees happy.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She's a British Citizen, we can't stop her from returning home, so long as she can get here, (the state has no obligation to assist her travels). There was talk about all returning ISIS members being prosecuted, would have thought that this would apply to her too (although this suggests that only a fraction have been nicked: Just one in ten British jihadis have been prosecuted on return to UK ).
> 
> It would seem sensible to jail her and whilst incarcerated to attempt to engage her in a programme of de-radicalisation. Some hope with the state of our prisons I guess.
> 
> I would imagine her baby should be removed from her by social services, as they would any parent/carer who would be raising a child in a manner likely to be of determent to the child?



Good points.  If she finds her way to consular assistance then she should get what anyone else would in that situation.  The state has no more responsibility to her as they would to any other UK citizen who has got themselves in a situation abroad. 

Given she was a child when she went (and thus committed the offence) it would be hard to see any sort of prison sentence happening or being appropriate.

One thing that has come out of this and the interviews with those remaining beatles guys that are held by the Kurds is the total disconnect with anything they have done or been a part of.  They talk like they have just tried living in a different country and it hasn't worked out so they want home.  Obviously they are all no doubt utterly traumatised and fucked up after everything that has happened but they are just so cold with it all and utterly free of any remorse, almost like they are the victims.  I guess they are to an extent but willing victims all the same.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

jusali said:


> It's a tough one, my compassionate side would say bring her home.
> However, as has been said there seems to be no shame and even a touch of pride that she joined daesh.
> She seems to want all her rights without accepting her responsibilities.
> personally I don't know what to think!



She's 19 and she ran away at 15. We as a society seem to have no problem in  in extending compassion to adults who committed crimes while serving in the British army and virtually everyone involved in the  violence, however brutal or sectarian in Northern Ireland has been let off. Why does she merit being treated differently?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

littleseb said:


> maybe we should set up a caliphate within Britain to keep all the returnees happy.



We've already got one, it's called Belmarsh.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> She's 19 and she ran away at 15. We as a society seem to have no problem in  in extending compassion to adults who committed crimes while serving in the British army and virtually everyone involved in the  violence, however brutal or sectarian in Northern Ireland has been let off. Why does she merit being treated differently?


They're men.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

littleseb said:


> maybe we should set up a caliphate within Britain to keep all the returnees happy.



could put it in thetford think of the carbon miles we'd save in drone miles alone


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> If she's nine months pregnant or with a small child, I hope I'd the decency to offer her my seat



And move several carriages along.

Whilst its not a reason to not allow her back into the country, it would be naive in the extreme to believe she is not a threat just as much as any of the fighters returning home.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> They're men.



Its the IS thing, people were exactly they same when those beatles chaps started saying they want home.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Sorry, there's clearly a good option here that I'm completely missing. What was it again?



It's the one most people take - they choose not to travel thousands of miles to become fangirls of a genocidal, slaving state. Once she chose to be different the good options started falling away.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Its the IS thing, people were exactly they same when those beatles chaps started saying they want home.


having seen where ringo, paul and george lived, i'd like one of those homes too


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Its the IS thing, people were exactly they same when those beatles chaps started saying they want home.



People were mostly saying, "meh" when the UK wasn't prepared to step in to stop them facing a potential death sentence, (not that the UK had any jurisdiction to intervene anyway). Possibly there's some everyday sexism going on here, but it feels to me to be a more ISIS = CUNTS thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> She's 19 and she ran away at 15. We as a society seem to have no problem in  in extending compassion to adults who committed crimes while serving in the British army and virtually everyone involved in the  violence, however brutal or sectarian in Northern Ireland has been let off. Why does she merit being treated differently?


i must have imagined internment, the h-blocks, the campaigns against strip-searching, the blanketmen and hungerstrikes then.

perhaps you should read this





and this


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> She's 19 and she ran away at 15. We as a society seem to have no problem in  in extending compassion to adults who committed crimes while serving in the British army and virtually everyone involved in the  violence, however brutal or sectarian in Northern Ireland has been let off. Why does she merit being treated differently?


 None of them think getting on a tube train with a bomb is a brave and noble act. Or lived out mad max fantasies in the desert.
She has been part of a horrific cult and may well pose a risk.  At best her values are not UK values anymore.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> her values are not UK values anymore.


and what are uk values then?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

Honestly. It's just a variant on the 'should have kept her legs shut' stuff that all teenage mums get if they dare to mention that their life has turned out to be a bit more challenging than they expected. People love to tell young mothers how much it's all their own fault, and they hate to see them getting any compassionate treatment, and most of all they get outraged if they have the temerity to ask for help.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Honestly. It's just a variant on the 'should have kept her legs shut' stuff that all teenage mums get if they dare to mention that their life has turned out to be a bit more challenging than they expected. People love to tell young mothers how much it's all their own fault, and they hate to see them getting any compassionate treatment, and most of all they get outraged if they have the temerity to ask for help.



If she was a 19 yo man, would your views be different?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

The British state showing compassion would be fairly low down my list of priorities, or expectations, in the case. She might have been a minor when she went out there, and the school messed up in the cases of some of her cohort. (A few of the girls left after the school gave them letters addressed to their parents, informing them that their daughters were at risk, which might not have been the most effective way of raising such a serious concern with hindsight.) But, she's an adult now with a commitment to a fascist ideology.

Any argument for not just shrugging our shoulders at this point needs to be framed in more general terms. Does the anti-terror legislation she would be prosecuted under criminalise activity that would not previously have been illegal? What wider implications does this have for political dissent? When a minister on the news said that she could come back, but that the Foreign Office wasn't perpared to send staff to a war zone to provide consular support to get her out, I struggled to see what was so wrong with this position. Plenty of people get themselves into a sticky station abroad without consular support. As for any child(ren) involved the one expectation that seems reasonable would be consistency with how a similar case would be handled in a similar case involving a far-right group. I imagine that the situation might look very different if an English Patty Hearst joined some dodgy US far-right group just before they commited an attrocity. While far-right groups might share an equally hateful ideology, its hard to think of hypothetical comparison to Isis in terms of the sheer scale of their effectiveness.



weepiper said:


> They're men.



Apart from the ones that weren't. Irish Republican prisoners, women and feminists among them, engaged in a political process that led to their release. No doubt loyalist women ended up in prison too, although I can't think of any off the top of my head. That's the substantive difference  between these cases.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> They're men.


what, all of them?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Honestly. It's just a variant on the 'should have kept her legs shut' stuff that all teenage mums get if they dare to mention that their life has turned out to be a bit more challenging than they expected. People love to tell young mothers how much it's all their own fault, and they hate to see them getting any compassionate treatment, and most of all they get outraged if they have the temerity to ask for help.



Sorry, I don't think its that.  At least that's not the main driver. I think you're drawing parallels with other situations which don't exist.  

Its the IS thing.  She enabled IS as much as any UK male who joined to fight.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

From her interview, she seems to regret not being there at the last stand.
  That's not exactly screaming IS was wrong, murdering people who aren't the correct flavor of Islam is wrong and I shouldn't do it. Republicans mostly signed a peace treaty and stuck to it Daesh hasn't.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Honestly. It's just a variant on the 'should have kept her legs shut' stuff that all teenage mums get if they dare to mention that their life has turned out to be a bit more challenging than they expected. People love to tell young mothers how much it's all their own fault, and they hate to see them getting any compassionate treatment, and most of all they get outraged if they have the temerity to ask for help.



Surely if teenage girls are old enough to exercise some autonomy over their sexuality they are old enough to take some responsibility for their own actions when they decide to join a gang that kidnaps, rapes and murders other women?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It's the one most people take - they choose not to travel thousands of miles to become fangirls of a genocidal, slaving state. Once she chose to be different the good options started falling away.



Cool so your solution is 'don't do the thing you've already done'.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 14, 2019)

Notwithstanding that she should be allowed back on compassionate grounds having been a groomed UK child, now brainwashed adult, she'd be a way better intelligence asset here than left stateless out there.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Cool so your solution is 'don't do the thing you've already done'.


 british state is murderous but not genocidial and doesnt take slaves


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> From her interview, she seems to regret not being there at the last stand.
> That's not exactly screaming IS was wrong, murdering people who aren't the correct flavor of Islam is wrong and I shouldn't do it.



Its not going to happen though is it?  There is nothing to suggest the true believers have changed their mind in any respect.  The entire IS schtick was basically a death cult, you're not going to get out of that mind set just because things have started to unravel for you.  None of them will think they've done anything wrong and in fairness to her's she's not pretending otherwise.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Surely if teenage girls are old enough to exercise some autonomy over their sexuality they are old enough to take some responsibility for their own actions when they decide to join a gang that kidnaps, rapes and murders other women?


She decided to join the gang when she was still under the age of consent.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> and what are uk values then?



Don't join ISIS. Don't give support or allegiance to murderous regimes unless they are among the numerous murderous regimes we as a nation officially support. Don't mention our pals in China who have built an infrastructure of repression and torment ISIS could only dream of. Don't mention our pals in Saudi Arabia. Don't mention the Turkish state we are still doing business with despite their support of ISIS and their own crimes against humanity.

And say thanks to the driver when you get off the bus. I think that's it.


----------



## Manter (Feb 14, 2019)

newbie said:


> There are at least 7 British women and 15 or so children in that camp, according to the journo on the radio yesterday.  I don't see how making them stateless helps anything or anyone, which implies they should get consular assistance to return here, once they've served any jail terms elsewhere.  When they're here there are plenty of laws that can be used to lock them up or restrict their movements, and to take their children into care.


Completely agree- but if you read the FCO guidance on Syria says that they can offer no consular support there. She needs to get to, say, Lebanon. Then, as she has a British passport, she can come home.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> british state is murderous but not genocidial and doesnt take slaves _any more_



FFY

Also worth noting that the British state does have in common with ISIS the use of child soldiers.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> If she was a 19 yo man, would your views be different?


Yes, because if she was a man, she wouldn't have been impregnated three times already and lost two of the babies. I can't believe I actually have to spell this out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> FFY


you could have taken the extraneous i out of genocidial


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i must have imagined internment, the h-blocks, the campaigns against strip-searching, the blanketmen and hungerstrikes then.
> 
> perhaps you should read this
> 
> ...




I cant forget that but I can't forget this either






Neither of them seemed too troubled by the compromises they'd made.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She decided to join the gang when she was still under the age of consent.



There's an age of consent for joining ISIS?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's an age of consent for joining ISIS?


Haha. Ha.
We have an age of consent because it's generally agreed that until around 16 children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions about consequences to life choices.


----------



## Manter (Feb 14, 2019)

Lupa said:


> She is still with IS isn't she? So she is hardly going to start criticising IS...while still in their presence.....this may be her only way out of the mess she is in.
> Once back in the UK  she and her baby will be relatively safe.


She’s in al-Hawl. SDF are largest military presence near there, it’s outside d’aesh territory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> I cant forget that but I can't forget this either
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the road leading to that meeting was paved in part by the imprisonment of thousands of irish republicans


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> and what are uk values then?



There's posters of them in every school these days.

Children have to learn them.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the road leading to that meeting was paved in part by the imprisonment of thousands of irish republicans



And a fair few loyalists but very few in the official British forces.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Haha. Ha.
> We have an age of consent because it's generally agreed that until around 16 children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions about consequences to life choices.



That's to do with sex, not joining Islamic terror states. One presumes she didn't have sex until she married her Dutch beau, that was once she was in the caliphate, an area which seems to have had a somewhat more lax attitude to sex, especially with regards to raping Yazidi women and girls who were kept as slaves by people such Shamima Begum.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She decided to join the gang when she was still under the age of consent.



She she went out there when she was under 16, but she was above the age of criminal responsibility and of an age where the decision to enforce charges of statutory rape take in to consideration the question of consent, both parties ages and parental attitudes. She wasn't an adult in law, but nor was she a child.

More young men than young women are criminalised for how their lives play out over the course of this transition.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

I’m concerned about some people trying to devalue her ability to make choices as her own actor. 

Just because what she chose to do was abhorrent- supporting a slave owning theocracy - doesn’t mean mean she wasn’t competent. It showed ( misplaced in my opinion) courage and skills and probably a fair degree of intelligence of both kinds to get from London to the IS. I am concerned about people who try to infantilise women and BME people as not being as responsible for their actions as white men of any age. 

Anyway, I both hate and fear her and her fellow IS comrades. That’s my starting point. 

I’m not sure there is a good solution. The best is to see if she makes it back to the UK and then try her as a criminal and deal with her punishment and rehabilitation like that. The American Gitmo approach both didn’t work and was wrong and the Russian shooting people in the head approach is also wrong and makes us into something we don’t want to be.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Haha. Ha.
> We have an age of consent because it's generally agreed that until around 16 children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions about consequences to life choices.




btw, the age of criminal responsibility in the UK is 10.


eta: as mentioned by eoin_k above.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> There's posters of them in every school these days.
> 
> Children have to learn them.



So uniquely British too! Or so we're meant to believe


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Haha. Ha.
> We have an age of consent because it's generally agreed that until around 16 children don't have the capacity to make informed decisions about consequences to life choices.


unless you're in france where they deem such decisions can be made at 15 or in austria, germany or estonia where the aoc is 14, whereas in cyprus they feel consent can only be given at 17 and the turks locate the age at 18. it's by no means "generally agreed" there's something special around 16.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

I don't think the reaction would be any different if she was a 15 year old boy who had joined IS to fight.

She's a victim for sure and should she get to a place where she can seek consular assistance she should be afforded the same rights as any other UK citizen abroad.  Lets not pretend she's not a danger though because she clearly will be.  Having gone through what she has gone through she'll be completely messed up.


----------



## DownwardDog (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She decided to join the gang when she was still under the age of consent.



She was well above the age of criminal responsibility though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> And a fair few loyalists but very few in the official British forces.


curiously few in the crown forces


----------



## alex_ (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Yes, because if she was a man, she wouldn't have been impregnated three times already and lost two of the babies. I can't believe I actually have to spell this out.



She also have been executed or died


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

The age of criminal responsibility is far too young anyway.


----------



## klang (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> So uniquely British too! Or so we're meant to believe


nice to have the choice on Democracy: thumbs up or down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> There's posters of them in every school these days.
> 
> Children have to learn them.



mick jagger demonstrating his commitment to tolerance of different cultures and religions


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> There's posters of them in every school these days.
> 
> Children have to learn them.


I see tolerance and respect or others cultures and religions is the swearing finger.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> I’m concerned about some people trying to devalue her ability to make choices as her own actor.
> 
> Just because what she chose to do was abhorrent- supporting a slave owning theocracy - doesn’t mean mean she wasn’t competent. It showed ( misplaced in my opinion) courage and skills and probably a fair degree of intelligence of both kinds to get from London to the IS. I am concerned about people who try to infantilise women and BME people as not being as responsible for their actions as white men of any age.
> 
> ...



Millions of German soldiers, scientist and technicians whatever they did or believed under the Nazis, stopped doing it after the war


----------



## klang (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Millions of German soldiers, scientist and technicians whatever they did or believed under the Nazis, stopped doing it after the war


yes but they didn't know what was going on. nobody in germany did.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Millions of German soldiers, scientist and technicians whatever they did or believed under the Nazis, stopped doing it after the war



Apart from the ones who carried on doing exactly the same just for other countries.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> mick jagger demonstrating his commitment to tolerance of different cultures and religions





DotCommunist said:


> I see tolerance and respect or others cultures and religions is the swearing finger.


so i see


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Millions of German soldiers, scientist and technicians whatever they did or believed under the Nazis, stopped doing it after the war


And do you think that was right?


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> And do you think that was right?


You prefer the russian solution to denazification then?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I don't think the reaction would be any different if she was a 15 year old boy who had joined IS to fight.
> 
> She's a victim for sure and should she get to a place where she can seek consular assistance she should be afforded the same rights as any other UK citizen abroad.  Lets not pretend she's not a danger though because she clearly will be.  Having gone through what she has gone through she'll be completely messed up.



I imagine there'd be even more hostility to an adult Isis fighter irrespective of their gender, whether or not they'd been recruited before their sixteenth birthday.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> curiously few in the crown forces



But it doesn't matter anymore because everybody thinks that her majesty's a pretty nice girl now


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> There's posters of them in every school these days.
> 
> Children have to learn them.



The "Rule of Law" finger is a popular one.

https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/a-little-bit-isis.344464/


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> The age of criminal responsibility is far too young anyway.



Not sure James Bulger's mum and dad would agree.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> So uniquely British too! Or so we're meant to believe


Everyone knows British values are:

No eye contact on the tube.
Hating southerners if you live in the North.
Holding Northerners In amused contempt if you live in the south.
Everyone laughing at people from Norfolk
Thinking we have the best popular music in the world.
Kebabs and pizza.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> You prefer the russian solution to denazification then?


Yes of course I do. You can definitely draw that conclusion from my post.

Besides, the USSR had a Paperclip equivalent too.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Millions of German soldiers, scientist and technicians whatever they did or believed under the Nazis, stopped doing it after the war



And why weren't they procecuted. Apart from the famed examples of course. But the lower ranks?

Because it was deamed politically too damaging. Too disruptive to emergent post Nazi German society.

No such circumstances exist in consideration of any potential procecution for returning IS members here.


i.e. if she returns, let her face what procecution / rehabilitation such that exists. Has fuck all to do with what happened in post WWII  Germany.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> And do you think that was right?



If people change their ways, as they do that's all that really matters


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> If people change their ways, as they do that's all that really matters



What, in every case every where? This is nonsense.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not sure James Bulger's mum and dad would agree.


But Gary Dobson, David Norris and three other cunts might.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> What, in every case every where? This is nonsense.



Help people to rehabilitate and don't punish those who do rehabilitate.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Millions of German soldiers, scientist and technicians whatever they did or believed under the Nazis, stopped doing it after the war


or stopped doing it so much...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> You prefer the russian solution to denazification then?


much denazification was skimpy at best


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> or stopped doing it so much...


Or if there was anybody watching...


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She decided to join the gang when she was still under the age of consent.



My reply missread your last post a bit. I responded to it in terms of slut shaming teenagers rather than statutory rape. But, this is an edge case where the moral and legal question about consent are complex. Nothing she is saying as an adult, which she clearly now is, suggests that she sees herself as a victim, or distances herself from IS. Indeed, it's not even clear how old she was when she conceived her three pregnancies.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Help people to rehabilitate and don't punish those who do rehabilitate.



This is a bit vague. What do you think should happen to her if she returns to the UK?


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

I stopped doing all that killing stuff, after I stopped doing the killings. Can I have my therapy now please. And a sandwhich.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> I stopped doing all that killing stuff, after I stopped doing the killings. Can I have my therapy now please. And a sandwhich.



and better hospitals. those lazy cunt Doctors stopped working after we shot them. the cunts...


----------



## ffsear (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> Everyone knows British values are:
> 
> No eye contact on the tube.
> Hating southerners if you live in the North.
> ...



3 pints of stella!
leave means leave!


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

ffsear said:


> 3 pints of stella!...



That’s lunch sorted then.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> much denazification was skimpy at best


Something I read the other day claimed american denazification was more or less abandoned because of the cold war. Just a hasty veil drawn over all the rallies, the distribution of the protocols, american hb flirtation with fascism, Angleton's fash leaning....all down the memory hole.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> That’s lunch sorted then.





ffsear said:


> 3 pints of stella!
> leave means leave!


barred means barred


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Something I read the other day claimed american denazification was more or less abandoned because of the cold war. Just a hasty veil drawn over all the rallies, the distribution of the protocols, american hb flirtation with fascism, Angleton's fash leaning....all down the memory hole.


yeh very much so


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> much denazification was skimpy at best



Far too many carried on with what they were doing under new paymasters, but another difference here is that Germany capitulated before denazification took place, however imperfectly. The report I heard of this case is that she's expressing no regrets but just wants to come home now, which leaves me pretty indifferent to her fate.

Meanwhile, that bastion of justice the British state is responding with (and I paraphrase):

"Good luck getting back, but we're not risking our own necks to get you out. Feel free to make your own way to a consulate and we can have a chat. Oh, and by the way, you might get done for recruiting terrorists if we have anything on you, and don't be surprised if the kid gets taken into care."

What else do we expect?


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Um, have you read the story?


I've read the story, and I certainly don't see any reference to any terrorist actions she's even alleged to have carried out, unless you consider marrying and having children with an ISIS fighter in itself a terrorist act.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

The Nazi's mostly stopped murdering people after the War as have armed republicans mostly Daesh and its friends don't appear to want to stop.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> I've read the story, and I certainly don't see any reference to any terrorist actions she's even alleged to have carried out, unless you consider marrying and having children with an ISIS fighter in itself a terrorist act.



I didn't say she had. I was replying to a part of the thread discussing if she had criticised/renounced ISIS


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> This is a bit vague. What do you think should happen to her if she returns to the UK?



Of course it's vague because I'm talking in general. As I know neither what this young woman is accused of nor what she did, if anything beyond going to Syria,. I can say little about her. What I can say is that we should move on from tabloidesque expressions of outrage and calls for vindictive punishment.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> I've read the story, and I certainly don't see any reference to any terrorist actions she's even alleged to have carried out, unless you consider marrying and having children with an ISIS fighter in itself a terrorist act.



IS doesn't allow women to fight.  They have other rolls available for them and she would have known this when she left.  Just because she didn't directly pull the trigger or do the beheading herself it doesn't mean she wasn't directly involved.  She would have known this before she left as well.

Its more about her capacity as a child to make these decisions and what has happened to her since.  Her crimes (actions is probably a better word) seem fairly apparent.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> Something I read the other day claimed american denazification was more or less abandoned because of the cold war. Just a hasty veil drawn over all the rallies, the distribution of the protocols, american hb flirtation with fascism, Angleton's fash leaning....all down the memory hole.


Fairly much, as well as ours the French and the Russians did. Not very. Although Pierpoint did kill over 226 for their role- I think they made him a Brigadier for the duration.

But the DeBarthication of Iraq was handled with far more zeal. And that didn’t turn out too well either...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> I can say little about her. What I can say is that we should move on from tabloidesque expressions of outrage and calls for vindictive punishment.



Who has been making them then?


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> I stopped doing all that killing stuff, after I stopped doing the killings. Can I have my therapy now please. And a sandwhich.



British soldiers get therapy regardless of the justice of the conflict they volunteer to kill in. I don't think that (the treatment) is wrong.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> Fairly much, as well as ours the French and the Russians did. Not very. Although Pierpoint did kill over 226 for their role- I think they made him a Brigadier for the duration.
> 
> But the DeBarthication of Iraq was handled with far more zeal. And that didn’t turn out too well either...


you're confusing the removal of barthes' works from iraq with the removal of the ba'ath party from iraq. the debarthesification of iraq was carried out with zeal, perhaps with more zeal than the deba'athification of iraq.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2019)




----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Help people to rehabilitate and don't punish those who do rehabilitate.



It would be a bit weird to go to all the trouble to rehabilitate and then punish them.  Lots of straw floating around.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Of course it's vague because I'm talking in general. As I know neither what this young woman is accused of nor what she did, if anything beyond going to Syria,. I can say little about her. What I can say is that we should move on from tabloidesque expressions of outrage and calls for vindictive punishment.



Visiting Syria and seeing the results of atrocities I believe.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So, who wants to sit next to her on the tube?



I'm fine with sitting next to her on the tube, just for the record. I don't want to sit next to her on the tube, she's from London, but then you mostly have to sit next to London types on the tube. 

This seems a non story as a) Govt isn't going to pay travel costs unless she gets to a consulate and b) if she does she'll be flown back to Britain and go through prosecution/social services as applicable. 

Not that prosecution seems very likely as as far as we know she hasn't committed any crime. 

Kids that run away from home at 15 usually get into some fucked up stuff, see some things, get involved with unsavoury people and probably commit crimes too. Seems like we could avoid rushing to judgement.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> It would be a bit weird to go to all the trouble to rehabilitate and then punish them.  Lots of straw floating around.



Yes. He's been at it for a while now on this thread. I'm still waiting for him to tell us who in this thread is guilty of 'tabloid' style outrage.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

well the Islamic state has ceased to exist as a country/nation whatever unlike Germany or Iraq so no real need or desire to keep former nazis around because they know how the place runs anyone with any responsibility in Germany was a member of the Nazi party it wasn't optional. That's why no mercy will be shown to torys at the public death trials based at Wembley


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

UK will not put officials at risk to rescue Isis Britons, says minister


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm fine with sitting next to her on the tube, just for the record. I don't want to sit next to her on the tube, she's from London, but then you mostly have to sit next to London types on the tube.
> 
> This seems a non story as a) Govt isn't going to pay travel costs unless she gets to a consulate and b) if she does she'll be flown back to Britain and go through prosecution/social services as applicable.
> 
> ...



joining a murderous death cult that thinks going on a suicidal stabbing spree or driving a car into people is a laudable act rather ruins people desire to trust her.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> British soldiers get therapy regardless of the justice of the conflict they volunteer to kill in. I don't think that (the treatment) is wrong.



Do they? Even the ones convicted of war crimes, murder, abusing prisoners. They just get therapy and no punishment?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

..


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> ... That's why no mercy will be shown to torys at the public death trials based at Wembley



London Centric as ever. What’s wrong with Old Trafford, Ibrox or the Aviva/millennium stadium?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

The Govt. may well pay travel costs and more as she could be seen as the poster girl who went to Syria, didnt like it and turned her back on it.
She could be used as an influence to others.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> Do they? Even the ones convicted of war crimes, murder, abusing prisoners. They just get therapy and no punishment?



They get homeless, they get undiagnosed mental health problems, they get high levels of drug and alcohol abuse, they get shit pay as well. Mind you as they 'volunteer to kill' they've probably had it coming.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


>




Her biggest complaint seems to be ISIS not being pure enough.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Kids that run away from home at 15 usually get into some fucked up stuff, see some things, get involved with unsavoury people and probably commit crimes too. Seems like we could avoid rushing to judgement.



I think you're missing the whole indoctrination by a death cult angle here.  Whatever and whoever she was when she left she isn't that person now. IS were / are a hugely successful death cult, they'd be a bit shit if they couldn't manipulate a child's mind.

She's a clear danger until it can be shown otherwise.  That video Ed posted is quite damning really.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> The Govt. may well pay travel costs and more as she could be seen as the poster girl who went to Syria, didnt like it and turned her back on it.
> She could be used as an influence to others.



She still looks back fondly on those days when the bins were full of human heads because they weren't Muslims. Things just got a bit corrupt more recently and they've started torturing believers.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> London Centric as ever. What’s wrong with Old Trafford, Ibrox or the Aviva/millennium stadium?


anfield have intimated they would like to hold the trials, while prenton park are in negotiations regarding any trials of lib dems which may occur and labour trials look set to be held at goodison park.

the former people will be taken to the liverpool docks and thence loaded into ships for the voyage to south georgia


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> Her biggest complaint seems to be ISIS not being pure enough.



It always is.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> The Govt. may well pay travel costs and more as she could be seen as the poster girl who went to Syria, didnt like it and turned her back on it.
> She could be used as an influence to others.



except that at no stage has she said she didn't like it. on the contrary, she says she _did_ like it - the only reason she says she wants to come back to the UK is because of healthcare.

are you sure you actually read ony of this stuff?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> except that at no stage has she said she didn't like it. on the contrary, she says she _did_ like it - the only reason she says she wants to come back to the UK is because of healthcare.
> 
> are you sure you actually read ony of this stuff?


it is a pity then that a solution suitable to all parties might not be arranged in the eastern med.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She still looks back fondly on those days when the bins were full of human heads because they weren't Muslims.



19, and already nostalgic for disappeared happier times. Bless.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She still looks back fondly on those days when the bins were full of human heads because they weren't Muslims. Things just got a bit corrupt more recently and they've started torturing believers.



And other women were her slaves which was fine because they weren't pure.  Halcyon days.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

one's convicted of war crimes get Jailed Daesh they would have been promoted.

although after Phil Shiners campaign short of committing a massacre on live streaming your probably going to get off scott free


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> joining a murderous death cult that thinks going on a suicidal stabbing spree or driving a car into people is a laudable act rather ruins people desire to trust her.



So fucking what? When was trust a requirement of citizenship? Where did I mention trust at all? 

And since you've butted in, what was this nonsense earlier? 



likesfish said:


> At best she will require a lot of surveillance her moral code is different to the UK norm.



For the record I don't trust you and I think your 'moral code' is different to most people here. Do you see me demanding your citizenship be revoked?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> For the record I don't trust you and I think your 'moral code' is different to most people here. Do you see me demanding your citizenship be revoked?



I may have missed it but is anyone arguing that her citizenship should be revoked?  On here I mean?


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it is a pity then that a solution suitable to all parties might not be arranged in the eastern med.


A one woman Gitmo in the Sovereign Base Areas?


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I may have missed it but is anyone arguing that her citizenship should be revoked?  On here I mean?


I’ve not seen that on here TBF.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

To be fair, if the british state's security apparatus only spent its time surveilling members of genocidal death cults, rather than the Young Liberals and the Clandestine Insurgent Rebel Clown Army, it might be a bit more difficult to object to such activities.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I think you're missing the whole indoctrination by a death cult angle here.  Whatever and whoever she was when she left she isn't that person now. IS were / are a hugely successful death cult, they'd be a bit shit if they couldn't manipulate a child's mind.
> 
> She's a clear danger until it can be shown otherwise.  That video Ed posted is quite damning really.



You're a clear danger until it can be shown otherwise. Your post is quite damning really. I think we should lock you up. 

Daesh are not the only people who can manipulate children's minds. Pimps, drug dealers, abusers are all quite capable. I think you're using the word "Death cult" (what does that even mean?) to try to pretend this is a different issue than it is.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

I haven't fucked off to join a foreign Death Cult that keen on spreading violent Jihad.

Britain's youngest female terror plotter jailed for life after planning Isis-inspired attack on British Museum, For example, is a not unreasonable suspicion of why she might want to come back to the uk.

Death cult massacre, slaving, the fetishism of making suicide attacks beheading of hostages


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I may have missed it but is anyone arguing that her citizenship should be revoked?  On here I mean?



I said:



SpackleFrog said:


> This seems a non story as a) Govt isn't going to pay travel costs unless she gets to a consulate and b) if she does she'll be flown back to Britain and go through prosecution/social services as applicable.



Which got some bizarre responses from you and likesfish.

I can only assume from the responses you think she shouldn't be allowed back into the country, which would mean revoking her citizenship. So you have raised revoking her citizenship, possibly without realising.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're a clear danger until it can be shown otherwise. Your post is quite damning really. I think we should lock you up.
> 
> Daesh are not the only people who can manipulate children's minds. Pimps, drug dealers, abusers are all quite capable. I think you're using the word "Death cult" (what does that even mean?) to try to pretend this is a different issue than it is.



IS are a clear death cult.  Have you missed the entire history of it?  There is no mercy for anyone who does not adhere to their strict code, it really is as simple as that.  They themselves welcome death, or would have us believe.  I'm not sure where to go with this conversation if you don't understand that premise.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> I haven't fucked off to join a foreign Death Cult that keen on spreading violent Jihad.
> 
> Britain's youngest female terror plotter jailed for life after planning Isis-inspired attack on British Museum, For example, is a not unreasonable suspicion of why she might want to come back to the uk.
> 
> Death cult massacre, slaving, the fetishism of making suicide attacks beheading of hostages



What is your point here? 

I think you're a danger to yourself and others. Is that a justification for locking you up or revoking your citizenship?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

I propose we get Chris Grayling to organize her immediate return


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> IS are a clear death cult.  Have you missed the entire history of it?  There is no mercy for anyone who does not adhere to their strict code, it really is as simple as that.  They themselves welcome death, or would have us believe.  I'm not sure where to go with this conversation if you don't understand that premise.



What is a death cult? 

Even in this post you seem unsure. Is a death cult a group that welcomes death, or a group that wants us to believe they welcome death?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, you could read my actual replies, you know the thread you're now posting on when I said she should be afforded the same legal protection as any other UK citizen abroad.  Strawman shit because you've not read the thread and don't really understand what people are arguing.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What is a death cult?
> 
> Even in this post you seem unsure. Is a death cult a group that welcomes death, or a group that wants us to believe they welcome death?



A death cult who wishes death on all non-believers and is prepared to carry it out and they themselves have no fear of death.  In fact they welcome it as it will speed their process to glorious afterlife.

As for the caveat I've never been in a death cult so I don't know how many actually await death with glee so we can only go on what they say.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

What are we arguing about actually? 

Who disagrees with:
A. She still seems quite on side with the whole caliphate thing. Heads in bins, no biggie. 
B. UK personell aren't going out there to get her.
C. If she makes it back here somehow, questioning, possible procecution and high likelihood of her child going into care await.
D. Meh.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2019)

it seeks to immanetize the eschaton through large scale death. Thats textbook deathcult stuff tbf


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

She was a committed and enthusiastic supporter of a fascist regime which committed mass rape, torture and murder on misogynistic, racist, homophobic and religiously motivated grounds.  She is entirely unrepentant about that; she only wants out now because the writing's on the wall, and to exploit the healthcare provided by a society that's her sworn enemy. She was well over the age of criminal responsibility when she left, and stayed there into adulthood.  Frankly, I couldn't care less if she dies in a Syrian refugee camp.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

xenon said:


> What are we arguing about actually?
> 
> Who disagrees with:
> A. She still seems quite on side with the whole caliphate thing. Heads in bins, no biggie.
> ...



Rehabilitation should be attempted for sure.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What is a death cult?
> 
> Even in this post you seem unsure. Is a death cult a group that welcomes death, or a group that wants us to believe they welcome death?


*Religious and minority group massacres, forced conversion, and expulsion*

See also: Arabization, Genocide of Christians by ISIL, Genocide of Shias by ISIL, and Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL
*Sexual violence and slavery*
Further information: Sexual violence in the Iraqi insurgency and Slavery in 21st-century Islamism
See also: Islamic views on slavery, Ma malakat aymanukum, Raptio, and Wartime sexual violence
*Destruction of cultural and religious heritage*
Main article: Destruction of cultural heritage by ISIL


I'm pretty sure that's a good starting point for getting the murder of LGBT people beheading aid workers and doctors etc etc


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> No, you could read my actual replies, you know the thread you're now posting on when I said she should be afforded the same legal protection as any other UK citizen abroad.  Strawman shit because you've not read the thread and don't really understand what people are arguing.



Alright fair enough, but then what is your point about the 'damning' video? Why did you respond to me in the first place?


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> Her biggest complaint seems to be ISIS not being pure enough.


What a vile, heartless brat.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> [...]
> Not that prosecution seems very likely as as far as we know she hasn't committed any crime.
> [...]
> Kids that run away from home at 15 usually get into some fucked up stuff, see some things, get involved with unsavoury people and probably commit crimes too. Seems like we could avoid rushing to judgement.



SpackleFrog selctively edited their post, so I thought might be worth putting it in a different light. The girl got in with a bad crowd as a teenage. We've seen it all before, probably done something similar-a non-story.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> A death cult who wishes death on all non-believers and is prepared to carry it out and they themselves have no fear of death.  In fact they welcome it as it will speed their process to glorious afterlife.
> 
> As for the caveat I've never been in a death cult so I don't know how many actually await death with glee so we can only go on what they say.



Did everyone who lived in the former caliphate genuinely believe all these things and act on those beliefs? 

What distinguishes this girl from members of a suicide cult here or members of the Westboro Baptist church in the US?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did everyone who lived in the former caliphate genuinely believe all these things and act on those beliefs?
> 
> What distinguishes this girl from members of a suicide cult here or members of the Westboro Baptist church in the US?



Most of them didn't move there specifically to join it and then tell a journalist with the Times, just the other day, that they had no regrets, even when they saw the heads piling up in the litter bins.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> SpackleFrog selctively edited their post, so I thought might be worth putting it in a different light. The girl got in with a bad crowd as a teenage. We've seen it all before, probably done something similar-a non-story.



If you feel that's a selective edit why not just post the whole thing? eoin_k 



SpackleFrog said:


> I'm fine with sitting next to her on the tube, just for the record. I don't want to sit next to her on the tube, she's from London, but then you mostly have to sit next to London types on the tube.
> 
> This seems a non story as a) Govt isn't going to pay travel costs unless she gets to a consulate and b) if she does she'll be flown back to Britain and go through prosecution/social services as applicable.
> 
> ...



My point was *not *that "we've seen it all before, probably done something similar". I doubt a high proportion of Urbs ran away from home (for more than a week at least) at 15. When that happens, kids are running away from something and they usually end up being preyed upon or exploited in some way.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> *Religious and minority group massacres, forced conversion, and expulsion*
> 
> See also: Arabization, Genocide of Christians by ISIL, Genocide of Shias by ISIL, and Genocide of Yazidis by ISIL
> *Sexual violence and slavery*
> ...



This is not a definition.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Rehabilitation should be attempted for sure.



Maybe if she could get a big cannon and fire herself at the UK, we can put up a net when we get round to it.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> What a vile, heartless brat.


She's had two babies die in the last three months and she's due to give birth any day, but let's not imagine that her grief and her hormones might be clouding her judgement about anything right now


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is not a definition.


they literally want to bring about the end times through enough war and slaughter. Now, yes some loonier ends of american xtian ideology have similar eschatology but crucially they haven't actually had a square go at it. Yet.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Alright fair enough, but then what is your point about the 'damning' video? Why did you respond to me in the first place?



I responded to you because you said you'd have no problem sitting next to her on the tube and really she's just like anyone else.

She's spent several years being indoctrinated by a cult who have shown nothing but extreme brutality to anyone who does not adhere.  Followers of the same cult have already carried out numerous attacks on civilians across the globe but particularly in Europe, it is the stated aim of the cult to carry out many more of these acts.  She is not like anyone else and should she get back to the UK she should get rehabilitation but she should also be carefully watched until because she is clearly a risk.

The video is damning because quite frankly it gave me the creeps.  She sounds well and truly indoctrinated.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Most of them didn't move there specifically to join it and then tell a journalist with the Times, just the other day, that they had no regrets, even when they saw the heads piling up in the litter bins.



Let's just take the full passage from the article: 

"She said that seeing her first "severed head" in a bin "didn't faze me at all".

"It was from a captured fighter seized on the battlefield, an enemy of Islam.

"I thought only of what he would have done to a Muslim woman if he had the chance," she said. 

I think you are misrepresenting what was reported there. Don't you? 

Does the full sentence quote about 'what he would have done to a Muslim woman' suggest anything to you?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I responded to you because you said you'd have no problem sitting next to her on the tube and really she's just like anyone else.
> 
> She's spent several years being indoctrinated by a cult who have shown nothing but extreme brutality to anyone who does not adhere.  Followers of the same cult have already carried out numerous attacks on civilians across the globe but particularly in Europe, it is the stated aim of the cult to carry out many more of these acts.  She is not like anyone else and should she get back to the UK she should get rehabilitation but she should also be carefully watched until because she is clearly a risk.
> 
> The video is damning because quite frankly it gave me the creeps.  She sounds well and truly indoctrinated.



I said I would have no problem because it makes no odds to me whether I'm sat on the tube with her or any other stranger that is quite likely to have some fucked up beliefs and could well be "truly indoctrinated" as you put, thanks for that expert view on indoctrination there.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She's had two babies die in the last three months and she's due to give birth any day, but let's not imagine that her grief and her hormones might be clouding her judgement about anything right now



She was a keen and determined supporter of this brutal regime from before the death of her children and her current pregnancy.  I'm baffled as to why you're so keen to show compassion to someone who'd e.g. support you being killed for seeking equality for women?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Let's just take the full passage from the article:
> 
> "She said that seeing her first "severed head" in a bin "didn't faze me at all".
> 
> ...



the irony is she's in a prison camp run by non muslims


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> and what are uk values then?


 Not death for unislamic activities.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

DotCommunist said:


> they literally want to bring about the end times through enough war and slaughter. Now, yes some loonier ends of american xtian ideology have similar eschatology but crucially they haven't actually had a square go at it. Yet.



Yeah that's fair and I'm not saying they're not a death cult, just concerned by stuff like this: 




Teaboy said:


> She's a clear danger until it can be shown otherwise.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did everyone who lived in the former caliphate genuinely believe all these things and act on those beliefs?



I don't know, but from the audio there is nothing to suggest she didn't and indeed doesn't.  Given what people from her death cult have done it would probably be best to err on the side of caution, don't you think?



> What distinguishes this girl from members of a suicide cult here or members of the Westboro Baptist church in the US?



Suicide cults are a risk to themselves and Westboro are just arseholes who protest a bit.  When either start beheading aid workers and journalists, enslaving and raping women and children, driving lorries into Christmas markets and bombing concerts full of teenagers I'll start worrying about them.

I'll flip the question.  Why isn't she a risk?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> She was a keen and determined supporter of this brutal regime from before the death of her children and her current pregnancy.  I'm baffled as to why you're so keen to show compassion to someone who'd e.g. support you being killed for seeking equality for women?



Showing compassion to vulnerable kids who are attracted to Daesh, the far right etc is a key part of the fight to stop Daesh, far right etc recruiting and growing. Don't want to speak for weepiper but it's a good enough reason for me.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Let's just take the full passage from the article:
> 
> "She said that seeing her first "severed head" in a bin "didn't faze me at all".
> 
> ...



I was reading the subtitles to the interview editor posted, which didn't include all of that, but did include this explanation of why she was unfazed:

"Because you have to remember that these people [ie. Deash], their beliefs are that you kill the non-Muslims but you treat the Muslims good."

This puts a different gloss on things, too.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah that's fair and I'm not saying they're not a death cult, just concerned by stuff like this:



Because people from her cult have actually carried it out on numerous occasions.  There is more than reasonable suspicion that she may wish to do the same.  

To repeat, I think she should be allowed back and she should get rehabilitation.  I don't think she should come back and lets all pretend the last few years didn't happen.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Showing compassion to vulnerable kids who are attracted to Daesh, the far right etc is a key part of the fight to stop Daesh, far right etc recruiting and growing. Don't want to speak for weepiper but it's a good enough reason for me.



I get the idea of getting to vulnerable kids before these arseholes get to turn them. But that time has passed; she's not a kid who's flirting with this ideology, she's an adult who's still committed to it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I don't know, but from the audio there is nothing to suggest she didn't and indeed doesn't.  Given what people from her death cult have done it would probably be best to err on the side of caution, don't you think?



Is there anything to suggest she did and does hold those beliefs? 

What are you proposing we do, in order to err on the side of caution? 




Teaboy said:


> Suicide cults are a risk to themselves and Westboro are just arseholes who protest a bit.  When either start beheading aid workers and journalists, enslaving and raping women and children, driving lorries into Christmas markets and bombing concerts full of teenagers I'll start worrying about them.



Themselves and vulnerable people who can be attracted to them. Which could include you, your family, your friends. Westboro might not have committed violent acts but other Christian fundamentalists do - you're applying guilt by association to this girl, why not them too? 




Teaboy said:


> I'll flip the question.  Why isn't she a risk?



She might be. If you're looking for risk everyone is a potential risk. Especially people you didn't think were a risk.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Showing compassion to vulnerable kids who are attracted to Daesh, the far right etc is a key part of the fight to stop Daesh, far right etc recruiting and growing. Don't want to speak for weepiper but it's a good enough reason for me.



Yes, I agree.  Show her the compassion that she and her lot would never show anyone else.  I agree but that's not mutually exclusive with recognizing what she has been through and what that may have turned her into.

I don't think we're that far apart.  I just think she's a risk at the moment, it'll be even weirder if she wasn't.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> I get the idea of getting to vulnerable kids before these arseholes get to turn them. But that time has passed; she's not a kid who's flirting with this ideology, she's an adult who's still committed to it.


But only white men can be fully accountable for their actions. Obvs.


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Let's just take the full passage from the article:
> 
> "She said that seeing her first "severed head" in a bin "didn't faze me at all".
> 
> ...


 Anyone not part of her brand of Islam is less than human. Basically the same as any devout follower. Though most of them just pity you rather than want to kill them.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> I get the idea of getting to vulnerable kids before these arseholes get to turn them. But that time has passed; she's not a kid who's flirting with this ideology, she's an adult who's still committed to it.



So if you met a 17 year old National Front supporter you'd show them compassion but give them a kicking if they were 19?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Because people from her cult have actually carried it out on numerous occasions.  There is more than reasonable suspicion that she may wish to do the same.
> 
> To repeat, I think she should be allowed back and she should get rehabilitation.  I don't think she should come back and lets all pretend the last few years didn't happen.



That's fair enough. I don't understand the disagreement in that case though? I said if she makes it to a consulate she'll be questioned/processed/prosecuted and put in the care of social services as applicable.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She's had two babies die in the last three months and she's due to give birth any day, but let's not imagine that her grief and her hormones might be clouding her judgement about anything right now



It's a pretty horendous situation for a young women to find herself in, but she also gives a very frank account of her own perspective. She doesn't seem at all afraid or reluctant to criticise Isis for not living up to its ideals. She recounts her experiences vivdly and doesn't represent herself as a victim. She also articulates why she wants to come back to Britain clearly.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Anyone not part of her brand of Islam is less than human. Basically the same as any devout follower. Though most of them just pity you rather than want to kill them.



So we're at risk of being pitied?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So we're at risk of being pitied?



No, that's not how her crew roll.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So if you met a 17 year old National Front supporter you'd show them compassion but give them a kicking if they were 19?



It would depend on the level of their past and ongoing involvement and ideological commitment.


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So we're at risk of being pitied?


 I guess though since if she comes back she will be pushing her kid around wearing a hijab and not talking to unbelievers I doubt anyone other than her kids teachers or her imman will have much to do with her. Or she might be well want to engage in jihad. Who knows?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is there anything to suggest she did and does hold those beliefs?
> 
> What are you proposing we do, in order to err on the side of caution?



She left to join when IS were in full flow, not at the start.  She would have known about all the beheadinsg of innocents and mass murder of those they decided were unpure.  She would have known about what happened to the Yazidi, its not like she could have blamed a bias media IS themselves were the media in all this.  She could have been in no doubt about those aspects of IS life, but...

Yes, she was an impressionable child.  But this is the thing if she was that impressionable in the first place what would she have become when she was fully immersed in an entire set up which is designed to brainwash with indoctrination.  I don't know what she is like now, but I say it again it would be very strange if she didn't hold beliefs that the acts carried out by IS were justifiable.

What I'm suggesting (and I've said this numerous times) is that shoudk she make it back to the UK she needs rehabilitation and at the same time very close monitoring from the security services.  Just as if she was a front line IS fighter returning to the UK






> Themselves and vulnerable people who can be attracted to them. Which could include you, your family, your friends. Westboro might not have committed violent acts but other Christian fundamentalists do - you're applying guilt by association to this girl, why not them too?



I'm sorry I just don't see the comparison. If there is a Christian cult that start doing the same then yes I would apply the same logic.  




> She might be. If you're looking for risk everyone is a potential risk. Especially people you didn't think were a risk.



Risk needs to be evaluated though.  She is a greater risk because of her background.  We can't plan for risk we don't see, all we can do is plan for the bloody obvious risk that she is.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

She is a year younger than Lee Clegg was when he killed two people as part of an organisation he joined as a boy. What age between them should we draw the line?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's fair enough. I don't understand the disagreement in that case though? I said if she makes it to a consulate she'll be questioned/processed/prosecuted and put in the care of social services as applicable.





Classic urban innit?

I just don't want to sit next to her on a tube but you'd be fine with that.  I think that's all we're disagreeing on.  Anyway lunchtime.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She's had two babies die in the last three months and she's due to give birth any day, but let's not imagine that her grief and her hormones might be clouding her judgement about anything right now


It was that almost as much as being unfazed by heads in bins.
"Had two die on me, let's immediately produce another baby jihadist..."


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> I guess though since if she comes back she will be pushing her kid around wearing a hijab and not talking to unbelievers I doubt anyone other than her kids teachers or her imman will have much to do with her. Or she might be well want to engage in jihad. Who knows?



Who knows what she'll do when / if she gets back?


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Who knows what she'll do when / if she gets back?



 That's the whole problem.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> It was that almost as much as being unfazed by heads in bins.
> "Had two die on me, let's immediately produce another baby jihadist..."



That's pretty fucked man.  Babies are just babies, there are no baby jihadists.  We also have no idea what she went through and how much choice if any she had in ending up pregnant. We just don't know.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Not death for unislamic activities.


Zombiedom then, that's not death


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Zombiedom then, that's not death


but enough about the lib dems


----------



## SpineyNorman (Feb 14, 2019)

A380 said:


> But only white men can be fully accountable for their actions. Obvs.


Valuable contribution to the debate there, well done.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> They're men.


Oh, ffs.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

SpineyNorman said:


> Valuable contribution to the debate there, well done.


Thanks, I thought so too.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Shamima Begum was groomed. She deserves the chance of rehabilitation | Michael Segalov

It's one thing to say that the school failed in their duty of care, or that it took far too long for the likes of Twitter to work out what role social media was playing in Daesh's recruitment strategy, but it doesn't follow that framing all of this in terms of grooming and brainwashing necessarily makes sense either.

While there was a sexual aspect to the role Begum was recruited into when she was just below the age of consent, describing her as brainwashed or groomed seems dangerously close to ascribing no agency to teenagers. What other subcultures do young people join that could be viewed this way: queer scenes, social movements, environmental protests, political organisations... All of these are open to abuse, but they are also places where young people begin to make political, ideological and sexual choices for themselves. Making your own way from east London to war-torn Syria seems like a process that involves a degree of agency. It's hard to imagine radical social change that didn't involve young people subverting social expectations in a way that provoked accusations that they were being brainwashed.

However young she might seem to the Urban75 demographic myself included, she is an adult now and nothing she is saying narrates this as a case of abuse. Nothing suggests that she saw herself as a victim until elements in Daesh became corrupt (and tortured her husband in prison?). Making all of this about what 'she deserves' as the Guardian does just seems bizarre at this stage. There don't seem to be any plans afoot to withdraw her citizenship. Clearly, as people like her make their way here, the British state will have to decide how to deal with them, and the rest of us will have to take positions on what implications this has for our own concerns about legal/political rights and public safety.


----------



## treelover (Feb 14, 2019)

Shamima Begum was groomed. She deserves the chance of rehabilitation | Michael Segalov

Guardian Left weigh in, with Michaeal Segalov,and as expected its the argument she was groomed, etc.

I wonder if he would be so sympathetic about say, Beate Zschäpe, who was 16 when she took the turn to the far right and met Uwe Mundlos.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

There is of course an alternative. Rather than bring her home or leave her there we could arrange for her rendition to somewhere like Turkey. They would find out
what she has been up to and what her future intentions are.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Honestly. It's just a variant on the 'should have kept her legs shut' stuff that all teenage mums get if they dare to mention that their life has turned out to be a bit more challenging than they expected. People love to tell young mothers how much it's all their own fault, and they hate to see them getting any compassionate treatment, and most of all they get outraged if they have the temerity to ask for help.


What bollocks. She's 19 and unrepentent about fucking off to join a terrorist "state" who enslaved, raped, and murdered thousands of _other_ women and who would do the same to _you_ in a heartbeat. She seems to have happily engaged with what the scum were doing. She says she escaped because she saw no future for _the caliphate_, not because she thought they were cunts.

Pretty disgusting what you're doing here. Trying to crowbar in your agenda laden misogyny angle. The only difference between her and a male who'd done the same is that she's pregnant.

Absolutely nothing should be afforded her by the government. If she does manage to make it back here somehow her child should be removed and adopted whilst she is imprisoned until a) she shows some remorse, and b) she has been 'deradicalised' (if that's possible).


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

Nothing like guilty until proven innocent huh Spy?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> That's pretty fucked man.  Babies are just babies, there are no baby jihadists.  We also have no idea what she went through and how much choice if any she had in ending up pregnant. We just don't know.



i think we have a pretty good idea that when she went to Syria she knew, and made a deliberate choice to participate in, what was a breeding programme for Jihadists. the propaganda for that was very clear, all of the girls and women who went out to IS knew beforehand that they would be married (by IS) to an IS fighter, that they would be set up in a house and that it was about about making lots of babies as quickly as possible.

depending on the individual they were also promised either jobs - like midwives etc.. or just the suburban dream of 5 kids, a Toyota Hilux, a dutiful hubby who comes home after a days killing, and a slave. you know, just like any girl wants...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Nothing like guilty until proven innocent huh Spy?


Don't be a fucking idiot.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Nothing like guilty until proven innocent huh Spy?


She smuggled herself into Syria so that she could marry an IS fighter. Whatever she is, she isn't 'innocent'.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i think we have a pretty good idea that when she went to Syria she knew, and made a deliberate choice to participate in, what was a breeding programme for Jihadists. the propaganda for that was very clear, all of the girls and women who went out to IS knew beforehand that they would be married (by IS) to an IS fighter, that they would be set up in a house and that it was about about making lots of babies as quickly as possible.
> 
> depending on the individual they were also promised either jobs - like midwives etc.. or just the suburban dream of 5 kids, a Toyota Hilux, a dutiful hubby who comes home after a days killing, and a slave. you know, just like any girl wants...



Sure.  We can surmise that was the case, though I'm guessing she would have seen it more about becoming the wife of a glorious solider of Allah and all the wonderful things that come with it rather than participating in a breeding program.

Then again we all knew what we wanted to do when we were 15 until we suddenly realised we didn't want to do it all.  From the interview it seems she was pretty cool with it all, but really we don't know what has actually happened to her in those years (all the mad shit that would have become normal) and we also don't know how many ears were listening in on her when she gave those interviews.

As I say, we don't know.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Nothing like guilty until proven innocent huh Spy?


It's not entirely clear what crime she's actually guilty of, if any. This might be one reason to consider not offering her any more consular support to get back here than might be expected by a nineteen-year old who missplaced their plane ticket in Faliraki.


----------



## treelover (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Nothing like guilty until proven innocent huh Spy?



She went of her own volition to join a proven head choppers death cult, how can she be innocent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> It's not entirely clear what crime she's actually guilty of, if any.


The very act of going to Syria to join up with IS constitutes a crime now in the UK.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> She went of her own volition to join a proven head choppers death cult, how can she be innocent.



My client does not deny that she went to Syria to marry a member of a proven head chopper death cult. But I put it to the court that no criminal offence has been commited unless it can be shown she materially supported the aforementioned head chopper death cult.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

Lupa said:


> She is still with IS isn't she?


No she's not. She's in a refugee camp in northern Syria. She has had plenty of opportunity to safely denounce daesh snd hasn't done so.


----------



## treelover (Feb 14, 2019)

Being guilty doesn't mean she should not be offered some form of rehabilitation though, lower end nazis were offered basic De-nazification programmes, except a number in the East who met a different fate.

It is very very complicated.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> My client does not deny that she went to Syria to marry a member of a proven head chopper death cult. But I put it to the court that no criminal offence has been commited unless it can be shown she materially supported the aforementioned head chopper death cult.


*judge pulls lawyer to one side*
"you do know the law here, yes?'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> Being guilty doesn't mean she should not be offered some form of rehabilitation though, lower end nazis were offered basic De-nazification programmes, except a number in the East who met a different fate.
> 
> It is very very complicated.


Don't disagree with this, but the idea that she is in some way innocent here is laughable.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> It's not entirely clear what crime she's actually guilty of, if any.


Membership of a terrorist organisation.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Perhaps she should be offered a one-way ticket to Argentina and a job with the CIA.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *judge pulls lawyer to one side*
> "you do know the law here, yes?'



I should be most grateful if your honour would care to enlighten me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I should be most grateful if your honour would care to enlighten me.


The prosecution outlines the charge in Post 242. Given that you yourself have confirmed its veracity, shall we move straight to sentencing?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

This stuff about her being groomed - unless she had some personal relationship with an IS groomer, she was "groomed" by their media campaign. And loads of people must have seen that shite without being seduced by it. She's most likely an example of the sort of people who "have larceny in their heart" to quote Josef Goebbels, and can therefore be appealed to on that basis (by people like Goebbels).


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I didn't say she had. I was replying to a part of the thread discussing if she had criticised/renounced ISIS


You were responding to a post about whether she was a terrorist, but let's leave, it, the thread has moved on since my previous post


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The prosecution outlines the charge in Post 242. Given that you yourself have confirmed its veracity, shall we move straight to sentencing?



With the utmost respect, I put it to the court that the institution of matrimony and membership of an organisation, proscribed or otherwise, are two very different institutions. How else can we explain the marriage between members of parliament from the two main parties? We may not approve of her choice in suitor, but this in and of itself does not constitute a criminal offence.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Don't be a fucking idiot.





littlebabyjesus said:


> She smuggled herself into Syria so that she could marry an IS fighter. Whatever she is, she isn't 'innocent'.





treelover said:


> She went of her own volition to join a proven head choppers death cult, how can she be innocent.



This makes her a murderer not. Chasing after a criminal, even a murderer does not make her a criminal, or at least I don't think it does, that is unless you read the mail.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> This makes her a murderer not.


Who's saying she's a murderer?


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> This makes her a murderer not. Chasing after a criminal, even a murderer does not make her a criminal, or at least I don't think it does, that is unless you read the mail.


She's definitely an accessory!


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> This makes her a murderer not. Chasing after a criminal, even a murderer does not make her a criminal, or at least I don't think it does, that is unless you read the mail.



There are plenty of non-murdering crimes she could have been involved with. Slavery for a start - as a foreign bride to a foreign fighter living in Raqqa the chances of her _not _having a slave (and again, that's an actual slave) are about zero.

Recruitment? Providing intelligence? Assisting propaganda?

Fancy living next to a slaver?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

No one knows what she has been up to, yet she has been hung a few times over.
I really thought Urban was above the average mail reader. I really thought wrong.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

Reading more of the interview has far from raised my sympathy levels for her, pretty cold stuff to say the least.  Still, she was at war and war is kill or be killed, this line on seeing the head in a basket:


_"I thought only of what he would have done to a Muslim woman if he had the chance," she said.
_
I still think she presents a real danger.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> No one knows what she has been up to ...


Have you even read her own words in the article?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> No one knows what she has been up to, yet she has been hung a few times over.
> I really thought Urban was above the average mail reader. I really thought wrong.



What on earth are you on about?

ETA: The condescending nature of this post as well...


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> No one knows what she has been up to, yet she has been hung a few times over.
> I really thought Urban was above the average mail reader. I really thought wrong.


Don't be silly. 

This is more like some neo-nazi went off to fight with his mates in Ukraine, and then decided he'd had enough.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 14, 2019)

Presents as a danger is not a crime is it, just a risk.
i think I must have been radicalised.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

Its like groundhog day on this thread.


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Presents as a danger is not a crime is it, just a risk.
> i think I must have been radicalised.


I think you should consider handing yourself in to the Urban75 PREVENT team.

Please come quietly, it would be best for all concerned...


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Presents as a danger is not a crime is it, just a risk.
> i think I must have been radicalised.



I hope you like the taste of plastic bag and the sound of rushing air...


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

[Makes eye contact with individual jurors] Members of the jury, my client has denied all the accusations put before her and put the prosecution to proof that she has committed any offence, which they have singularly failed to do. She is a simple homemaker who has spent her days in Raqqa raising children, cooking and cleaning. While you may not approve of those she has associated with, in and of itself, this constitutes no offence. You may not like my client. Most likely you disapprove of all she stands for. However, your duty is not to judge her for these qualities. Your solemn duty is to judge the facts as to whether or not she has committed a criminal offence put before you. Neither travelling abroad, marrying an adult man, however ill-chosen, nor carrying out domestic housework... none of these constitute an actual offence. English Law does not prosecute a guilty mind, it requires a guilty act. And we rely on you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury to uphold this principle... not out of any ill-placed sympathy for the individual defendant but in the interest of justice.


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2019)

Fuck you lawyers.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> [Makes eye contact with individual jurors] Members of the jury, my client has denied all the accusations put before her and put the prosecution to proof that she has committed any offence, which they have singularly failed to do. She is a simple homemaker who has spent her days in Raqqa raising children, cooking and cleaning. While you may not approve of those she has associated with, in and of itself, this constitutes no offence. You may not like my client. Most likely you disapprove of all she stands for. However, your duty is not to judge her for these qualities. Your solemn duty is to judge the facts as to whether or not she has committed a criminal offence put before you. Neither travelling abroad, marrying an adult man, however ill-chosen, nor carrying out domestic housework... none of these constitute an actual offence. English Law does not prosecute a guilty mind, it requires a guilty act. And we rely on you, ladies and gentlemen of the jury to uphold this principle... not out of any ill-placed sympathy for the individual defendant but in the interest of justice.


This is nonsense. She travelled to Syria to join IS. This is indisputable. It is a criminal act in itself.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

There is a sort of precedent for this:

Tareena Shakil jailed for joining IS

Though clearly details differ.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> Fuck you lawyers.



You never know when you're going to need a good brief, so I'd watch my tone if I was you.


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> You never know when you're going to need a good brief, so I'd watch my tone if I was you.



I've plenty of good briefs thanks...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is nonsense. She travelled to Syria to join IS. This is indisputable. It is a criminal act in itself.



Exactly:



> "I applied to marry an English-speaking fighter between 20 and 25 years old," she said.



That is joining ISIS. She didn't happen to marry someone who was a member.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> With the utmost respect, I put it to the court that the institution of matrimony and membership of an organisation, proscribed or otherwise, are two very different institutions. How else can we explain the marriage between members of parliament from the two main parties? We may not approve of her choice in suitor, but this in and of itself does not constitute a criminal offence.


If my client is guilty of anything here, it is love. Love in the first degree.

*pukes*

She didn't even know who she was going to marry ffs. She apparently requested 'an English-speaker'.


----------



## xenon (Feb 14, 2019)

hash tag said:


> No one knows what she has been up to, yet she has been hung a few times over.
> I really thought Urban was above the average mail reader. I really thought wrong.


What you on about?

She went there to join Daesh, to take an active part in the caliphate. Which you may have noticed isn't known for having the highest regard for human rights and tolerance to other belief systems.

But "no one knows what she's been up to." She tells us herself you berk.
And no one's hanging her. Most people are saying if she makes it back here, she should be investigated, procecuted if there's the evidence and rehabilitated if possible.

Well Daily Mail that.


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> Fuck you lawyers.



There was a serious point inderneund this

Regardless of the law, if people like this return to the UK, how do we as the communities they may live, work, school their kids in etc. react?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> There was a serious point inderneund this
> 
> Regardless of the law, if people like this return to the UK, how do we as the communities they may live, work, school their kids in etc. react?


Well given the law, she faces a jail term here and losing her child for good. When she comes out of jail, we can't know how she might have changed or what kind of danger she might present, but I'm not sure that's so different from other people leaving prison after serving sentences for nasty things. I think there's a danger of making too much of this.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Looks like the Shakil case sets that sort of precedent, although I imagine this a better articulated version of the defence I tried to run  could work in the right case. Shakil's social media activty might not have helped.

There is a difference between moving somewhere because you like what is happening there, and actively joining a proscribed organisation or even providing it with material support. I don't have much sympathy in this case, but the consequences of it being generalised might give pause for thought too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Looks like the Shakil case sets that sort of precedent, although I imagine this a better articulated version of the defence I tried to run  could work in the right case. Shakil's social media activty might not have helped.
> 
> There is a difference between moving somewhere because you like what is happening there, and actively joining a proscribed organisation or even providing it with material support. I don't have much sympathy in this case, but the consequences of it being generalised might give pause for thought too.



In the case of moving to an ISIS-controlled part of Syria, I don't think there is a difference tbh. You can't move there and just live - you must actively join the cause or else you're the enemy.


----------



## chilango (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there's a danger of making too much of this.



That is certainly one concern. Ramping up far-right agitation.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> You were responding to a post about whether she was a terrorist, but let's leave, it, the thread has moved on since my previous post



The reference to 'terrorist' was by someone else and was a reply to a point about wanting to sit next to her on the tube. Get your facts straight.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In the case of moving to an ISIS-controlled part of Syria, I don't think there is a difference tbh. You can't move there and just live - you must actively join the cause or else you're the enemy.



Vice journalists managed to visit and produce a film, which Daesh clearly saw some value in allowing, without getting prosecuted on their return. Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation. Likewise, they needed to passively support the project, while they're out there, but I'm not sure that all of them should necessarily be seen as supporting it in a legal sense, which seems to require some sort of material support. The whole caliphat project set out to blur these distinctions, but I'm serious that it is worth thinking about what sort of dangerous precedents it sets in terms of criminalising communities, or beliefs rather than actions.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well given the law, she faces a jail term here and losing her child for good. When she comes out of jail, we can't know how she might have changed or what kind of danger she might present, but I'm not sure that's so different from other people leaving prison after serving sentences for nasty things. I think there's a danger of making too much of this.



I dunno about the jail sentence.  She was a child when she joined so that should be taken into account and that's one of the ways it differs from the Shakil case.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Vice journalists managed to visit and produce a film, which Daesh clearly saw some value in allowing, without getting prosecuted on their return. Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation. Likewise, they needed to passively support the project, while they're out there, but I'm not sure that all of them should necessarily be seen as supporting it in a legal sense, which seems to require some sort of material support. The whole caliphat project set out to blur these distinctions, but I'm serious that it is worth thinking about what sort of dangerous precedents it sets in terms of criminalising communities, or beliefs rather than actions.


Sexual access to slaves and wives was a key incentive Daesh provided to its fighters, though, wasn't it? So surely volunteering to be the latter would count as actively providing support?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Vice journalists managed to visit and produce a film, which Daesh clearly saw some value in allowing, without getting prosecuted on their return. Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation. Likewise, they needed to passively support the project, while they're out there, but I'm not sure that all of them should necessarily be seen as supporting it in a legal sense, which seems to require some sort of material support. The whole caliphat project set out to blur these distinctions, but I'm serious that it is worth thinking about what sort of dangerous precedents it sets in terms of criminalising communities, or beliefs rather than actions.



Interesting use of the word "Project".  Makes it sound so innocuous.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Clearly, Isis brides are going there because they are invested in the project, but it isn't clear to me that a higher court would or should consistently see this as meeting the requirement for membership of an organisation.


This makes it very clear that she saw herself as absolutely part of the organisation:


> "I was weak," she said. "I could not endure the suffering and hardship that staying on the battlefield involved.


As does this:


> "I applied to marry an English-speaking fighter between 20 and 25 years old,"


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Interesting use of the word "Project".  Makes it sound so innocuous.


 It's because I'm a secret sympathiser, but please don't tell anyone.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The reference to 'terrorist' was by someone else and was a reply to a point about wanting to sit next to her on the tube. Get your facts straight.



she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
 If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I dunno about the jail sentence.  She was a child when she joined so that should be taken into account and that's one of the ways it differs from the Shakil case.


Perhaps. 15 isn't 10, though. She can be held to account for things she did at 15. If she comes back, I will be amazed if she doesn't get a jail term. tbh while I think there is a danger of overstating the threat such people represent when they return here, I also think there is a danger here of understating the role of women who go to ISIS to have their children. They're a part of the struggle just as much as the killers they marry and support.


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The reference to 'terrorist' was by someone else and was a reply to a point about wanting to sit next to her on the tube. Get your facts straight.


Here, for the record, is the post you replied to, followed by your reply


hash tag said:


> Oh come on. Not every young mum, not every Muslim, not every person who has been to a Muslim country or Syria is a terrorist





Smokeandsteam said:


> Um, have you read the story?


Anyway, not bothered about pursuing this any further


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
> If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day



I agree. But Andy Says has tried to put words in my mouth. Again.


----------



## andysays (Feb 14, 2019)




----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

treelover said:


> Shamima Begum was groomed. She deserves the chance of rehabilitation | Michael Segalov
> 
> Guardian Left weigh in, with Michaeal Segalov,and as expected its the argument she was groomed, etc.
> 
> I wonder if he would be so sympathetic about say, Beate Zschäpe, who was 16 when she took the turn to the far right and met Uwe Mundlos.


Yeh cos obvs daesh aren't right wing at all


----------



## treelover (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
> If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day



It will be all over his FB page now, bet they are planning some sort of rally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she's spent 4 years with a group who decided the Waffen SS needed to be shown how you do atrocities "watch my sweet tea" being suspicious of her and her motives is only sensible.
> If she came back and committed murder tommy would have even more of a field day


Unless it was syl she topped


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 14, 2019)

andysays said:


> Here's the post you replied to, followed by your reply
> 
> 
> Etc...



I know what post I replied to. The poster before suggested that people wouldn't want to sit next to her on a tube _in case. _Can you understand that this does not state she is a terrorist but raises the point that her actions in Syria will raise questions and concerns.   

Post one - 'she may or she may not have been engaged in terrorist activity, but would you take the chance etc. 
Post two - 'oh come on' etc. 
Post three - I reply 'have you read the article'. 

 I know explaining this stuff to you just feeds your pedantry so no more.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> Sexual access to slaves and wives was a key incentive Daesh provided to its fighters, though, wasn't it? So surely volunteering to be the latter would count as actively providing support?



Maybe... It's just such a weird outlier. It's hard to see how defining women who go out there without swearing an oath, as men do, or recruiting others, or disseminating propaganda, or taking militant action can be defined as members of Isis without the legal definition of membership of a proscribed organisation expanding. Clearly, they support terrorism passively, but their active support also need to go beyond doing housework, or 'we' are potentially going to criminalise a lot of relatives of the members of other proscribed organisations for making their tea and washing their socks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Maybe... It's just such a weird outlier. It's hard to see how defining women who go out there without swearing an oath, as men do, or recruiting others, or disseminating propaganda, or taking militant action can be defined as members of Isis without the legal definition of membership of a proscribed organisation expanding. Clearly, they support terrorism passively, but their active support also need to go beyond doing housework, or 'we' are potentially going to criminalise a lot of relatives of the members of other proscribed organisations for making their tea and washing their socks.


This case is clear-cut, though. She sought out ISIS so that she could join up with them and marry one of them and have children for them. We know all this. And it is very very very far from passive - it was really hard for her to get there and do all this.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Maybe... It's just such a weird outlier. It's hard to see how defining women who go out there without swearing an oath, as men do, or recruiting others, or disseminating propaganda, or taking militant action can be defined as members of Isis without the legal definition of membership of a proscribed organisation expanding. Clearly, they support terrorism passively, but their active support also need to go beyond doing housework, or 'we' are potentially going to criminalise a lot of relatives of the members of other proscribed organisations for making their tea and washing their socks.


Ffs, are you being serious?

You're comparing someone who travels to another continent with the express aim of 'marrying a terrorist FIGHTER', in order to have his children to create more jihadis and populate a murderous, proscribed, "state", to someone who does a relatives laundry?

For real?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Ffs, are you being serious?
> 
> You're comparing someone who travels to another continent with the express aim of 'marrying a terrorist FIGHTER', in order to have his children to create more jihadis and populate a murderous "state", to someone who does a relatives laundry?
> 
> For real?



I'm having similar trouble with this tack.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

I can only conclude that those who take this line have decided that housework is women's work, and therefore for the weak and passive, and therefore does not qualify as 'active' support.

Which is a bit . . . . silly, if you think about it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

She's a very clear accessory to all of the acts carried out by the group she was living with while she was living with them. Not sure even she would deny that. The woman who got six years for doing similar got off relatively lightly in many ways. A man who had gone there and taken on the role of fighter and husband to one of these women would surely be facing life.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Unless it was syl she topped



difficult one then yes shes a dangerous jihadi but the target won't exactly be missed although if jihadis hate the west they probbly wouldnt killy syl because there bastards.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

"syl"? C'est quoi, le "syl"?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> "syl"? C'est quoi, le "syl"?



C'est qui, pas quoi, c'est Tommy.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> C'est qui, pas quoi, c'est Tommy.


Ah, M. Yaxley-Lennon. Maintenant, je comprends.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> If she was a 19 yo man, would your views be different?


She's nineteen now but she was Fifteen when she left. But whichever age, young men in that cohort also do things that they would not do when they're older. You don't have to go to Syria to know that, just look at the society you live in now or the one you grew up in yourself.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> She's nineteen now but she was Fifteen when she left. But whichever age, young men in that cohort also do things that they would not do when they're older. You don't have to go to Syria to know that, just look at the society you live in now or the one you grew up in yourself.


Of course they do, but that doesn't mean they are let off for acts carried out when they were irresponsible teens. I don't want to condemn or write off this woman for life, but I also don't want to downplay the utterly despicable nature of both her beliefs and her actions. The fact she was there as a child bearer rather than an active fighter doesn't diminish her responsibility much in my book. Two different roles while acting for the same cause.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> She's nineteen now but she was Fifteen when she left. But whichever age, young men in that cohort also do things that they would not do when they're older. You don't have to go to Syria to know that, just look at the society you live in now or the one you grew up in yourself.



What, so no prison sentences for offences committed before the age of 40 because, you know, kids eh...?

If she had killed a child in Bethnal Green at age 15 she'd have been locked up and the key thrown away as she'd have been well over the age at which she's liable for her actions.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> I'm having similar trouble with this tack.



I'm not actually trying to get her off. Just pointing out that it isn't obviously all that clear cut what offence she has committed simply by going out there and getting married and living on the front line. Generally, there is a distinction between supporting terrorism and membership of an organisation, even if you don't get issued with a card. Likewise support tends not to operate on the level of being a member of the same household, no matter how important your role in the social reproduction of terrorist communities. I imagine that if she tries to come back here the state will come up with a reason to bang her up. I won't loose any sleep over the justice of her particular case and will probably sleep happier in my bed at night so long as she isn't walking the streets of London. That doesn't mean that it might not set a precedent for greater political repression of other groups, too.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course they do, but that doesn't mean they are let off for acts carried out when they were irresponsible teens. I don't want to condemn or write off this woman for life, but I also don't want to downplay the utterly despicable nature of both her beliefs and her actions. The fact she was there as a child bearer rather than an active fighter doesn't diminish her responsibility much in my book. Two different roles while acting for the same cause.


Additionally, she was there for 4 years. So over 18 for at least one of them. She openly states that the reason for her leaving was because life had become rather uncomfortable. Not because she disagreed with what IS were doing.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> ... it isn't obvously all that clear cut what offence she has commited simply by going out there and getting married and living on the front line.


You're just repeating the same tosh over and over.

It is_ perfectly clear_ to pretty much everyione else.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You're just repeating the same tosh over and over.
> 
> It is_ perfectly clear_ to pretty much everyione else.


It's clear morally imo. But it's also clear legally. A while back the govt went out of its way to stress that anyone going to Syria to join up with ISIS was committing a criminal offence. Well that's exactly what she did.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But it's also clear legally.


Totally.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I'm not actually trying to get her off. Just pointing out that it isn't obviously all that clear cut what offence she has committed simply by going out there and getting married and living on the front line.



Doesn't it come under treason?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Can anyone access the Times piece:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/analysis-will-the-isis-brides-be-prosecuted-bf5x0pg5w

The teaser suggests that it might point to some of the issues.


> When the three teenagers from Bethnal Green in east London travelled to Syria, their parents were assured by senior police that they were unlikely to be prosecuted for terrorist offences.
> 
> Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, and Sir Mark Rowley, the force’s head of counterterrorism, agreed that the girls would be “returning to their families” if they decided to come back. “We have no evidence that these three girls are responsible for any terrorist offences. They have no reason to fear, if nothing else comes to light, that we will treat them as terrorists,” Sir Mark told the Commons home affairs select committee in March 2015.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Can anyone access the Times piece:
> Analysis: Will the Isis brides be prosecuted?
> 
> The teaser suggests that it might point to some of the issues.



There is a difference between voluntarily getting back home because you realised you've made a terrible mistake and having to leave because your cult has been utterly routed and you've nowhere else to go.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> There is a difference between voluntarily getting back home because you realised you've made a terrible mistake and having to leave because your cult has been utterly routed and you've nowhere else to go.


And a cult like Aum Shinrikiyo, routed though it has been, still has enough adherents to be a threat:

The ghosts of Aum Shinrikyo - Policy Forum


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> There is a difference between voluntarily getting back home because you realised you've made a terrible mistake and having to leave because your cult has been utterly routed and you've nowhere else to go.



But he didn't say come back and all will be foregiven, he said 'We have no evidence that these three girls are responsible for any terrorist offences.' This was only one month after their arrival and a lot happened in the meantime, but still it does point to the fact that marrying a criminal and having their kids isn't generally an offence in and of itself.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

I honestly don't have a solid opinion on this because of her age really. Although i will say the suggestion that she just needs therapy and healing is probably naive given she seems pretty clear in her head re the righteousness of heads in bins. Just watched this in the news, she said a lot more than is represented in the piece, seems to regret a bit. Also her man was twice her age so that's abuse,and yeah 19 is still a bairn really. Very difficult.

And yes, would be just as conflicted if she' d joined the national front.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I honestly don't have a solid opinion on this because of her age really. Although i will say the suggestion that she just needs therapy and healing is probably naive given she seems pretty clear in her head re the righteousness of heads in bins. Just watched this in the news, she said a lot more than is represented in the piece, seems to regret a bit. Also her man was twice her age so that's abuse,and yeah 19 is still a bairn really. Very difficult.
> 
> And yes, would be just as conflicted if she' d joined the national front.



I think that's a perfectly reasonable and decent position to hold.  If she gets back to the UK it should be a case of hope for the best but prepare for the worst.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> But he didn't say come back and all will be foregiven, he said 'We have no evidence that these three girls are responsible for any terrorist offences.' This was only one month after their arrival and a lot happened in the meantime, but still it does point to the fact that marrying a criminal and having their kids isn't generally an offence in and of itself.



Fair point but presumably he said that at a time when they were still trying to coax her back.  I think there's little chance she wouldn't end up in court now, as you say - things have moved on.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 14, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> "syl"? C'est quoi, le "syl"?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I think that's a perfectly reasonable and decent position to hold.  If she gets back to the UK it should be a case of hope for the best but prepare for the worst.



If I was in a very forgiving mood and in charge of decisions I might send a secret service agent over with a carry cot to make an assessment of her position and condition, and bring the bairn back.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Fair point but presumably he said that at a time when they were still trying to coax her back.  I think there's little chance she wouldn't end up in court now, as you say - things have moved on.



They have, but those conversations will be remembered.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> They have, but those conversations will be remembered.



I don't think they'll give much of a shit.  

There were cases when they said the same to families of young men who had joined IS.  They came back to find themselves locked up all the same.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 14, 2019)

chilango said:


> There's posters of them in every school these days.
> 
> Children have to learn them.



When I worked in a nursery we had to do ‘British values’ nonsense with 4 year olds. 

Little bastards told me I ‘had to go to jail FOREVER!!’  

My crime: “eating all the noodles”

Rule of law my arse


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> They have, but those conversations will be remembered.



Yeah, as 'copper tells porkie' shock.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I don't think they'll give much of a shit.
> 
> There were cases when they said the same to families of young men who had joined IS.  They came back to find themselves locked up all the same.



hhhaahhahahahha


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Feb 14, 2019)

Just heard her interview on the news.
She's not fazed by heads in a bin....???
That's really telling.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> hhhaahhahahahha



Yeah, I think the point being that it didn't do wonders for trust in the British state for those who had gone out there and immediately regretted it.  More importantly it didn't really help for trust in the British state for the families and communities that had worked hard to get them back.  Almost like a recruiting tool in itself.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2019)

Out of curiosity, how far was she from her 16th birthday when she fled to join this bunch of murderous, hate filled cunts?


----------



## Riklet (Feb 14, 2019)

"Don't tread on any landmines!" - maybe we could all send her this on a post-card

Disagree with stripping citizens of their nationality etc but I have no sympathy whatsover for this odious toerag


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, I think the point being that it didn't do wonders for trust in the British state for those who had gone out there and immediately regretted it.  More importantly it didn't really help for trust in the British state for the families and communities that had worked hard to get them back.  Almost like a recruiting tool in itself.



frankly dont care fuck the lot of them  a community that breeds jihadists doesnt  deserve any trust


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, I think the point being that it didn't do wonders for trust in the British state for those who had gone out there and immediately regretted it.  More importantly it didn't really help for trust in the British state for the families and communities that had worked hard to get them back.


Boo hoo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> frankly dont care fuck the lot of them  a community that breeds jihadists doesnt  deserve any trust


_We_ are the community that breeds jihadists. Condemn those who join up with Isis by all means (and I certainly do), but not whole communities of people the vast majority of whom are horrified by all this.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

Jihadist breeding communities aye? I don't think he means communities in the imaginary liberal sense.


Still trying to find my gay community


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Jihadist breeding communities aye? I don't think he means communities in the imaginary liberal sense.
> 
> 
> Still trying to find my gay community


although to be fair in this particular case, the girl really did join a jihadist breeding community.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

I still don't really understand how we've got to 12 pages on this. If she makes it to the consulate, she comes back and probably goes through hell. If she doesn't, she's in a refugee camp and will probably go through hell. 

What's to discuss? 

FWIW I think if there's anything worth discussing here is why kids are growing up in Britain and thinking yeah maybe I'll go join IS...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 14, 2019)

There is a child about to be born in severely distressed conditions in a camp in Syria. While this is tragically very common in this case it is a UK citizen thus we have responsibilities to it. The mothers behaviour not withstanding the child should be, by a great distance, the primary concern here. 
As for those asking "what crime has she committed", if she had fucked off to Ibiza for a couple of years of shagging and pilling up but lost two children from negligence there would not be much of a debate on investigating her for criminal behaviour in terms of child negligence and possible fitness to remain the guardian of the newly born soon to arrive. 
The grandparents seem the most likely guardians for the child however her fitness should be a matter for Tower Hamlets child services and the family courts. 
The governments position and those seeking to point score here on the back of these circumstances look to be in poor moral taste.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> At best she will require a lot of surveillance her moral code is different to the UK norm.
> Warcrimes slavery fine if they are the Kuffar.
> 
> Can't see her keeping her kid because nobody  first suicide vest Turing up at preschool.



Is there a British moral code we are supposed to adhere to? Ifso I've missed it. I come from a state that has been perpetually at was somewhere or other for well over a century, in whose name countless attrocities that far outstrip those of Daesh, admittedly probably only because we have the ability to slaughter en-masse which they don't. And our client state Saudi Arabia  combines our hi-technical slaughtering skills with the Grand Guginol theatricality of Daesh.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

Dan U said:


> Even if she does want to come back she has to find her way to somewhere with UK consular assistance. She is in a refugee camp in a failed state, not sure any civil servant will be rushing out with some forms to fill in.


Let's hope someone goes out and helps her, then.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Let's hope someone goes out and helps her, then.


Not going to happen by the looks of it.



> But Mr Wallace said any Britons who had gone to Syria to engage or support terrorist activities should be prepared to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted if they came back to the UK.
> 
> He said there was no consular assistance in Syria and insisted he would not attempt to rescue Ms Begum.
> 
> "I'm not putting at risk British people's lives to go and look for terrorists or former terrorists in a failed state," he told the BBC.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> FWIW I think if there's anything worth discussing here is why kids are growing up in Britain and thinking yeah maybe I'll go join IS...



That really is the question. One of those really important ones that always gets lost under shouting.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> That really is the question. One of those really important ones that always gets lost under shouting.



As I said earlier, kids that run away at 15 are running from something.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> It was that almost as much as being unfazed by heads in bins.
> "Had two die on me, let's immediately produce another baby jihadist..."



Her two children died within the last three months. She is nine months pregnant now. Do the maths.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> FWIW I think if there's anything worth discussing here is why kids are growing up in Britain and thinking yeah maybe I'll go join IS...


There isn't going to be one answer. This one did it to "escape an unhappy home life" apparently.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Her two children died within the last three months. She is nine months pregnant now. Do the maths.


A veritable jihadist factory.
I hope this child gets taken into care.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> A veritable jihadist factory.
> I hope this child gets taken into care.


Please don't use "factory " in this context, especially if the men involved aren't also "factories" ffs.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> A veritable jihadist factory.
> I hope this child gets taken into care.



Bit unpleasant there.


----------



## Argonia (Feb 14, 2019)

She's taking the piss, heading off to join IS and then wanting to come back here. Unbelievable.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

I'm not intending to be gender-specific, but males lack the facilities.
She's clearly unfit to be looking after a child unsupervised.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> I'm not intending to be gender-specific, but males lack the facilities.
> She's clearly unfit to be looking after a child unsupervised.


She didn't fucking make the babies by herself, did she?


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Not going to happen by the looks of it.


This is Benn Wallace a middle-aged Tory government Minister talking hard about a girl young enough to be his daughter. I have more sympathy for a fifteen year old girl who runs away to join Daesh. At least, I assume she is driven by idealism.



> Ben Wallace stressed Begum, who left east London four years ago as a 15-year-old schoolgirl, had a right as a UK citizen to come back, but said* there were “consequences” of travelling to Syria to support the “horrendous” Islamic State terror organisation.*



He'll face no Consequences" for his much more cynical support of the Saudi State terror organisation. And as for our cynical shit of a mayor



> . London Mayor Sadiq Khan suggested that Begum, who is now 19, should not be allowed back into Britain if the security services believe that she poses a risk to national security or of committing terrorist offences.



Who really trusts the statements of our security services. And since when do we sentence before the trial, anyway.

Redirect Notice


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> A veritable jihadist factory.
> I hope this child gets taken into care.



Vile cruel sexist shit.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Think the British State has got it about right now. Leave her where she is and make no effort to help her. Should she somehow end up getting to an embassy or somewhere where something more active needs to be done then worry about it then. Hopefully at some point between the situation now and the possible future situation above the problem will be resolved somehow.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Vile cruel sexist shit.


Every sperm is sacred ?


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> I'm not intending to be gender-specific, but males lack the facilities.
> She's clearly unfit to be looking after a child unsupervised.



If she comes back she won't be living in the middle of a war.


----------



## donkyboy (Feb 14, 2019)

ISIS wondering where insane medieval fantasy project went wrong





> ISIS fighter Ahmed Al-Jazrawi said: “Looking back, I think antagonising absolutely everyone in the world probably wasn’t the smartest move.
> 
> “The strong possibility of being killed by a US drone or dozens of other enemies definitely created recruitment challenges that don’t exist for, say, Asda.
> “We also failed to sell the idea of living in a backward religious dictatorship. I think that’s a bit of a turn-off for people who don’t like being flogged all the time.”
> ...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Who really trusts the statements of our security services.


When it comes to IS and their cronies I'll take the security services advice, no problem.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> That really is the question. One of those really important ones that always gets lost under shouting.



It's been asked plenty and there's been loads of research done and stuff written about it.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> Every sperm is sacred ?



Every human life is sacred. This girl and her child have a right to turn things around


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It's been asked plenty and there's been loads of research done and stuff written about it.



I've spent time reading around it myself, but beyond academia it really does get lost under shouting. It's not a question ''society at large'' seems ready to take seriously.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It's been asked plenty and there's been loads of research done and stuff written about it.



I think the post you responded to doesn't  necessarily suggest otherwise, e.g. If I said "Labour's own history of right wing bullshit often gets lost in these discussions" I wouldn't be wrong despite the rich history of opposition to they cunts


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Every human life is sacred. This girl and her child have a right to turn things around




she had no problem with other women being raped to death so the fact she's being fed in a refugee camp rather than left to die in a ditch


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

I think being compassionate is rarely a bad start point, but it's often a very inappropriate finish point.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> If she makes it to the consulate, she comes back and probably goes through hell. If she doesn't, she's in a refugee camp and will probably go through hell.



A win/win.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Think the British State has got it about right now. Leave her where she is and make no effort to help her.


Its not to do with her. There is a baby about to be born. The relevant authorities should be seeking that child's safety as their over riding goal. 
This woman and her vile views have very likely contributed to the negligence that has cost two other children their lives. 
She is in no position to materially care for the child to a manner acceptable to UK authorities.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I've spent time reading around it myself, but beyond academia it really does get lost under shouting. It's not a question ''society at large'' seems ready to take seriously.


We're all at a loss, aren't we? Norway has just about the highest living standard in the world, extensive social security networks, etc, yet it produced Anders Breivik. I don't think there are clear answers to any of this stuff. Even in a virtually ideal society, people would come along who would do terrible shit. 

Aside from the obvious - stop starting wars and get out of the ones you've already started - I don't have any particular ideas wrt Britain, although 'don't start wars' is a very good place to start, I think, if you're serious about not producing violent extremists.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Its not to do with her. There is a baby about to be born. The relevant authorities should be seeking that child's safety as their over riding goal.
> This woman and her vile views have very likely contributed to the negligence that has cost two other children their lives.
> She is in no position to materially care for the child to a manner acceptable to UK authorities.



What are you suggesting? Go and take the baby from her and leave her there, or bring them both back here, or something else?

And treat her as a special case? I might be wrong but as far as I know the British authorities don't intervene in child protection cases of any other UK citizens that have decided to go and live in other parts of the world.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she had no problem with other women being raped to death so the fact she's being fed in a refugee camp rather than left to die in a ditch




You know no more than I do what she did and didn't have problems with. I do however find it strange that a middle-aged man living in relative comfort can be so filled with disgust for a teenage girl living in a squalid camp who has already seen two children die. She may lack compassion, you clearly do, and are old enough to know better.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> What are you suggesting? Go and take the baby from her and leave her there, or bring them both back here, or something else?


The exact legal moves are beyond me but there should be an investigation of her circumstances from the relevant local authority (in this case Tower Hamlets) and if she cannot provide for the child in a manner expected there should be a legal move in the family courts to place the child in a safe environment. I am sure there are those here who will be able to fill in the details.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> You know no more than I do what she did and didn't have problems with. I do however find it strange that a middle-aged man living in relative comfort can be so filled with disgust for a teenage girl living in a squalid camp who has already seen two children die. She may lack compassion, you clearly do, and are old enough to know better.


Let's not go overboard the other way though. She knew exactly what IS were and what they did before she went, and her reaction to it was 'can I join in?'


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> You know no more than I do what she did and didn't have problems with. I do however find it strange that a middle-aged man living in relative comfort can be so filled with disgust for a teenage girl living in a squalid camp who has already seen two children die. She may lack compassion, you clearly do, and are old enough to know better.



Speaking of people living in and speaking from comfort do those of you so keen to show compassion for her feel any obligation to be slightly less forgiving on behalf of all those killed, tortured, raped, and made homeless and Stateless that she helped and encouraged through her active support for IS?


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> The exact legal moves are beyond me but there should be an investigation of her circumstances from the relevant local authority (in this case Tower Hamlets) and if she cannot provide for the child in a manner expected there should be a legal move in the family courts to place the child in a safe environment. I am sure there are those here who will be able to fill in the details.



You expect Tower Hamlets child protection services to go to Syria to work this out? Oh dear.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> The exact legal moves are beyond me but there should be an investigation of her circumstances from the relevant local authority (in this case Tower Hamlets) and if she cannot provide for the child in a manner expected there should be a legal move in the family courts to place the child in a safe environment. I am sure there are those here who will be able to fill in the details.


It's a bit naive to think this case would follow normal procedure like that, though. Various things would be politically impossible were she to return to the UK, especially after this publicity. I suggest that one of those would be the idea that she would be allowed to keep the child.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> The exact legal moves are beyond me but there should be an investigation of her circumstances from the relevant local authority (in this case Tower Hamlets) and if she cannot provide for the child in a manner expected there should be a legal move in the family courts to place the child in a safe environment. I am sure there are those here who will be able to fill in the details.


Not quite sure that welfare visits to refugee camps in Sryria fall under the remit  of the Tower Hamlets child protection team.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> ... teenage girl living in a squalid camp who has already seen two children die.



She's a woman, not  girl.

Given her children seem to have died (at least in part) as a result of malnutrition, one has to wonder about the extent to which their deaths were casued by her decsion to remain until it was obvious the caliphate was on its last legs.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a bit naive to think this case would follow normal procedure like that, though. Various things would be politically impossible were she to return to the UK, especially after this publicity. I suggest that one of those would be the idea that she would be allowed to keep the child.



I think the opposite, if she did end up back here it would be pretty impossible to take the child off her. And if the authorities did I expect a number of people on here to be moaning about that as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think the opposite, if she did end up back here it would be pretty impossible to take the child off her. And if the authorities did I expect a number of people on here to be moaning about that as well.


Well she'll be in prison for a start. But seriously, you think it would be hard to take her child? Someone who committed a criminal offence in travelling to Syria to join IS, who has already let two children in her care die? If you were following some kind of normal procedure I think it would be very easy to take the child away on child protection grounds. Given these circumstances, it becomes more or less mandatory to do so.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well she'll be in prison for a start.



That is far from certain.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Feb 14, 2019)

If she can get to where she can obtain consular assistance and makes it back to the UK with her newborn child, I'd expect her to be arrested and her child removed initially under Child Protection processes. I'd expect her to be prosecuted and locked up. It would be unlikely, depending on the length of the subsequent sentence, that the child would ever return to her care. 

My impression of the video is that it's chilling. A completely brutalised person. Clearly still a risk to the public in general, and to her child in particular.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That is far from certain.


Two things there: the law, which she has clearly broken, and the precedent of prosecution and jail time for others before her who have broken the same law. I think it is very certain, and this video has made it even more certain.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Speaking of people living in and speaking from comfort do those of you so keen to show compassion for her feel any obligation to be slightly less forgiving on behalf of all those killed, tortured, raped, and made homeless and Stateless that she helped and encouraged through her active support for IS?




She was a child from Tower Hamlets who ran away, not a Daesh strategist. As to forgiveness, I'm not in a position to need to forgive her, anymore than anyone here is. I can't forgive on somebody else's behalf


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well she'll be in prison for a start. But seriously, you think it would be hard to take her child? Someone who committed a criminal offence in travelling to Syria to join IS, who has already let two children in her care die? If you were following some kind of normal procedure I think it would be very easy to take the child away on child protection grounds. Given these circumstances, it becomes more or less mandatory to do so.



So many legally disputable things in that even at first glance by a non-legal person.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> She's a woman, not  girl.
> 
> Given her children seem to have died (at least in part) as a result of malnutrition, one has to wonder about the extent to which their deaths were casued by her decsion to remain until it was obvious the caliphate was on its last legs.




She was certainly was a girl when she got into the mess she's now in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> So many legally disputable things in that even at first glance by a non-legal person.


You think it is legally disputable that she broke the law? That's the most important point, and the one that will land her in prison. 

Go on then, explain how.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> She was certainly was a girl when she got into the mess she's now in.



She was a girl then, but was well above the age of criminal responsibility when she left. And she is now an adult and as such has actively engaged in support for IS, probably including more than just 'passive support', and is currently unrepentant and still supportive of IS and its ideology.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You think it is legally disputable that she broke the law? That's the most important point, and the one that will land her in prison.
> 
> Go on then, explain how.



"She went to join IS your honour?"

"No, she went to marry someone as she was alienated, depressed, and while vulnerable was brainwashed online."

As many on here have said. It'd be an easy case to construct in the courts.

Not everyone who went to join IS and fight has even been imprisoned and that's not what the State thinks is best to do. And you do know it's possible to break the law and not go to prison right?

As I said initially, best off turning our backs and hoping the problem gets sorted somehow.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> She was certainly was a girl when she got into the mess she's now in.


Just about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> "She went to join IS your honour?"
> 
> "No, she went to marry someone as she was alienated, depressed, and while vulnerable was brainwashed online."
> 
> As many on here have said. It'd be an easy case to construct in the courts..


It's a case that would be laughed out of court.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 14, 2019)

If she does manage to return to the UK isn’t she going to require protection from her former Isis comrades, that will want her dead for running home. Or more likely from someone thinking that killing her in their mind, evens things up.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think being compassionate is rarely a bad start point, but it's often a very inappropriate finish point.



I’m unsure what this means.


----------



## Poot (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> Out of curiosity, how far was she from her 16th birthday when she fled to join this bunch of murderous, hate filled cunts?


I don't know but I keep coming back to the fact that somehow there was a point when an unsupervised 15 year old child got on a plane. At some point she was protected as a minor and then she wasn't. What point was that? Surely a 15 year old can't just get on a plane to Turkey? Surely someone has to be with them at the airport if they're flying alone?


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> I’m unsure what this means.



I mean that starting from a position where being kind and understanding rather than condemning out of hand is a good thing, but there's times when you do need to move beyond that and take a position that judges and condemns someone's actions and expects them to take responsibility for what they did.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Poot said:


> I don't know but I keep coming back to the fact that somehow there was a point when an unsupervised 15 year old child got on a plane. At some point she was protected as a minor and then she wasn't. What point was that? Surely a 15 year old can't just get on a plane to Turkey? Surely someone has to be with them at the airport if they're flying alone?



She used her sister's passport. Anyway, I flew abroad when I was under 18. Fuck all checks.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I mean that starting from a position where being kind and understanding rather than condemning out of hand is a good thing, but there's times when you do need to move beyond that and take a position that judges and condemns someone's actions and expects them to take responsibility for what they did.


Of course, surely you can see why some -like myself- are dithering in this particular case ? It's not cause we are soft.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

Correction- we aren't all soft


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Of course, surely you can see why some -like myself- are dithering in this particular case ? It's not cause we are soft.



Yeah, I think it is complicated, of course. But as I said, leaving her (and her soon to be born baby) where she is is about the right decision currently.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I think it is complicated, of course. But as I said, leaving her (and her soon to be born baby) where she is is about the right decision currently.


Fair enough, I must look at this again the morn. I currently have no idea!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I think it is complicated, of course. But as I said, leaving her (and her soon to be born baby) where she is is about the right decision currently.


I have no problem with the idea of the British govt taking steps to get her and her baby back - if she is about to give birth presumably flying would not be wise anyway, but after that. She's British, she's in trouble, and she's asked for help. 

But when she gets back, she then faces the consequences of what she did. And what she did was despicable. It's not surprising that she doesn't sound that repentant at this moment. It will take a lot and probably a long time for her to accept the enormity of what she's done - helping murderers, torturers and rapists, allowing her own two children to die - there is a lot there to process. And I'd want her to get help in processing that. But part of that process has to be accepting responsibility, and that will have to mean prosecution and prison. I really don't see how else we, as in British society, could deal with her return - just give her a pram and send her back to Bethnal Green? I don't see how that could ever possibly happen. Plus, she will be extensively 'debriefed' if she ever gets back here. That's not at all in doubt.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It will take a lot and probably a long time for her to accept the enormity of what she's done - helping murderers, torturers and rapists, allowing her own two children to die - there is a lot there to process. And I'd want her to get help in processing that. But part of that process has to be accepting responsibility, and that will have to mean prosecution and prison. I really don't see how else we, as in British society, could deal with her return - just give her a pram and send her back to Bethnal Green? I don't see how that could ever possibly happen. Plus, she will be extensively 'debriefed' if she ever gets back here. That's not at all in doubt.


That's assuming that she actually feels the need to accept any responsibility or wants to 'process' anything.


> "I don't regret coming here," she told Times journalist Anthony Loyd, who found her in the camp.
> 
> "I'm not the same silly little 15-year-old schoolgirl who ran away from Bethnal Green four years ago."


IS runaway teen 'could be prosecuted in UK'


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> A veritable jihadist factory.
> I hope this child gets taken into care.


Fuck off.
I didn't bother responding the first time you came out with this misogynistic shit but this can't be not commented on now.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> That's assuming that she actually feels the need to accept any responsibility or wants to 'process' anything.
> 
> IS runaway teen 'could be prosecuted in UK'


On C4News the family's lawyer made the point that we might treat any statements made in the context of the 'refugee' camps with some caution. Even if she had reappraised her decision to join the Caliphate, she may well be living in proximity to those who haven't.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I mean that starting from a position where being kind and understanding rather than condemning out of hand is a good thing, but there's times when you do need to move beyond that and take a position that judges and condemns someone's actions and expects them to take responsibility for what they did.



You want to make an example of someone and you start with someone at the very bottom. Meanwhile those at the top in our society whatever they authorise who ever they collaborate with get away with it. Who's really worse a fifteen year old who runs off to Syria and become the mother of two dead children or a politician or company director who arms and backs the Saudi genocide in Yemen?






Do you think she's worse than these grovellers?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 14, 2019)

They kind of got to say that as she's not really coming across as sympathetic at the moment.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> You want to man example of someone and you start with someone at the very bottom. Meanwhile those at the top in our society whatever they authorise who ever they collaborate with get away with it. Who's really worse a fifteen year old who runs off to Syria and become the mother of two dead children or a politician or company director who arms and backs the Saudi genocide in Yemen?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My mistake, sorry, I didn't know the thread was about constructing an ordered list of who and what is worst in the world.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> My mistake, sorry, I didn't know the thread was about constructing an ordered list of who and what is worst in the world.


It clearly is about that and for some here a teenage girl comes top of the hate list. And I say girl, because those of you who hate her hate her for a choice she made when she was 15


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> You want to man example of someone and you start with someone at the very bottom. Meanwhile those at the top in our society whatever they authorise who ever they collaborate with get away with it. Who's really worse a fifteen year old who runs off to Syria and become the mother of two dead children or a politician or company director who arms and backs the Saudi genocide in Yemen?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's a bit whatabouterry, though. Of course the world is an awful place full of cunts and the cunts in power are the worst of the lot. But as chilango asked earlier, there is a solid practical problem for all of us here with people like this woman returning to the UK. How do we, as a society, deal with such a situation? Do we say and do nothing and just let them slip quietly back in? No doubt that has happened in one or two cases where people have flown under the radar, but when we know who they are and even help them to return? Then what do we do? I don't think the fact that the UK's political leaders also have blood on their hands helps to answer that question.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> You want to make an example of someone and you start with someone at the very bottom. Meanwhile those at the top in our society whatever they authorise who ever they collaborate with get away with it. Who's really worse a fifteen year old who runs off to Syria and become the mother of two dead children or a politician or company director who arms and backs the Saudi genocide in Yemen?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Give it a rest Tim, ffs.

It’s perfectly possible to deplore both. This thread however, is not about the UK support for the Saudis.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> Fuck off.
> I didn't bother responding the first time you came out with this misogynistic shit but this can't be not commented on now.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> My mistake, sorry, I didn't know the thread was about constructing an ordered list of who and what is worst in the world.


I'd like to see how it goes if that logic is offered to the victims of Not The Top Ten Worst People In The World


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 14, 2019)

I used to think you were just really fucking stupid.
But no you're a misogynistic piece of crap happy to praise far right sexist trolls, denigrate women as factories.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

redsquirrel said:


> I used to think you were just really fucking stupid.
> But no you're a misogynistic piece of crap happy to praise far right sexist trolls, denigrate women as factories.


Not got any violent revolutions to foment ?


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> It clearly is about that and for some here a teenage girl comes top of the hate list. And I say girl, because those of you who hate her hate her for a choice she made when she was 15


But she's a grown up now. 

"I'm not the same silly little 15-year-old schoolgirl who ran away from Bethnal Green four years ago"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> On C4News the family's lawyer made the point that we might treat any statements made in the context of the 'refugee' camps with some caution. Even if she had reappraised her decision to join the Caliphate, she may well be living in proximity to those who haven't.


She'll be hated by everyone there quite probably, surrounded by the victims of IS as well, no doubt, who won't look too kindly on another of the many foreigners who have come to their land to put it into flames.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She'll be hated by everyone there quite probably, surrounded by the victims of IS as well, no doubt, who won't look too kindly on another of the many foreigners who have come to their land to put it into flames.


Exactly. 
In that context very difficult to take any statement from the 19 year old as anything other than what she sees necessary for survival.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Exactly.
> In that context very difficult to take any statement from the 19 year old as anything other than what she sees necessary for survival.


I agree.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Exactly.
> In that context very difficult to take any statement from the 19 year old as anything other than what she sees necessary for survival.



And also very difficult to take anything the family lawyer says as anything other than what he sees best to get her off any possible charges.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree.



I’d expect her card to be marked already if that’s the case.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And also very difficult to take anything the family lawyer says as just what he thinks is best to get her off any possible charges.


Oh come on. We can know that there will be IS and IS victims in that camp. She will need to be careful what she says because the former will potentially distrust her and the latter will despise her.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

She expressed the view that Daesh probably no longer deserved to win, so she's not been toeing the line very well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

8ball said:


> I’d expect her card to be marked already if that’s the case.


We can't know. She may have some protector or other. We just don't know. And she's about to give birth - that in itself must be some protection of sorts.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And also very difficult to take anything the family lawyer says as anything other than what he sees best to get her off any possible charges.


Yes, that's his job, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate the specific observation of the woman's situation.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And she's about to give birth..



And what happens to that child is paramount in all this imo!


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And what happens to that child is paramount in all this imo!



Actually I think the child is not the most important thing, more important is not risking anyone's life to go and sort out this mess of her creating.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> But she's a grown up now.
> 
> "I'm not the same silly little 15-year-old schoolgirl who ran away from Bethnal Green four years ago"



I am a bit confused as to why all of a sudden being 19 is so strictly adult and grown up...she is still a teenager, she is a very young woman not a fully fledged grown up regardless of the awfulness she has been involved in.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Actually I think the child is not the most important thing, more important is not risking anyone's life to go and sort out this mess of her creating.



Of course that unborn child is the most important thing ffs! 

What risk to other lives are you on about?


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I am a bit confused as to why all of a sudden being 19 is so strictly adult and grown up...she is still a teenager, she is a very young woman not a fully fledged grown up regardless of the awfulness she has been involved in.


I'm a bit confused why a clearly strong-willed, resourceful and determined young woman keeps getting dismissed as a child.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> That's assuming that she actually feels the need to accept any responsibility or wants to 'process' anything.
> 
> IS runaway teen 'could be prosecuted in UK'




I can't imagine anyone in her position saying 'I regret coming here. I was groomed and stupid'. She'd be dead shortly after.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I can't imagine anyone in her position saying 'I regret coming here. I was groomed and stupid'. She'd be dead shortly after.



She hasn't exactly pulled her punches about what she thinks is wrong with the Caliphate.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> I'm a bit confused why a clearly strong-willed, resourceful and determined young woman keeps getting dismissed as a child.



Who is dismissing her as a 'child'? This polarising is really silly tbh. Is it so long ago that you can't remember what a good awful mess of strong willed, bad decision making time being 19 is?


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 14, 2019)

Was the talking about severed heads just for show ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> I'm a bit confused why a clearly strong-willed, resourceful and determined young woman keeps getting dismissed as a child.





Rutita1 said:


> I am a bit confused as to why all of a sudden being 19 is so strictly adult and grown up...she is still a teenager, she is a very young woman not a fully fledged grown up regardless of the awfulness she has been involved in.



Both of these can be, and probably are, true. Running away to Syria aged 15 took resourcefulness and determination. But she can still also be not fully grown up in her decision-making and 'moral compass' at the same time, and prone to seeing things in the very black and white 'I know it all' way that teenagers tend to see things.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She hasn't exactly pulled her punches about what she thinks is wrong with the Caliphate.




Okay..been at work until now tbh so happy to read anything that details this...I have only caught the headlines and summaries on radio since yesterday.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

From the age of 18, she's an adult in the eyes of UK law.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> Was the talking about severed heads just for show ?


She was asked a question.

She answered.

Perhaps she should have lied?

I did think when hearing that that there was a deadness about her. Flat, matter of fact.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> From the age of 18, she's an adult in the eyes of UK law.


I was a fucking idiot when I was 18. 

(cue retort: you still are...)


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Both of these can be, and probably are, true. Running away to Syria aged 15 took resourcefulness and determination. But she can still also be not fully grown up in her decision-making and 'moral compass' at the same time, and prone to seeing things in the very black and white 'I know it all' way that teenagers tend to see things.



Fuck me, I joined the Forces at 16!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was a fucking idiot when I was 18.
> 
> (cue retort: you still are...)



Don't be a dick.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> From the age of 18, she's an adult in the eyes of UK law.



Yeah not disputing that of course...just pointing out that the law saying you are an adult isn't all there is to the assessment of adulthood and capacity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Don't be a dick.


It's a serious enough point. The law might say that you're an adult at 18, but there is nothing magic about that number and developmentally, we are all still becoming ourselves at that point, still somewhere in that fuzzy area between childhood and adulthood.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck me, I joined the Forces at 16!



...and many would call that decision absolute folly is the point.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...and many would call that decision absolute folly is the point.



But..the point is, I was absolutely sure of that decision!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

There were definite external factors at play as to why this 15 girl travelled to join Daesh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> But..the point is, I was absolutely sure of that decision!


tbf teenagers are often very sure about many things, no? That's part of their problem.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Just pondering the idea that this young woman was somehow unusually resourceful at 15...I don't think that's true at all tbh. It depends on the life you've lived surely. Her generation have had access to so much information and could do most of the arrangements online for example.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf teenagers are often very sure about many things, no? That's part of their problem.



And you were an idiot at 18. Nuff said.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> But..the point is, I was absolutely sure of that decision!



Yeah I know.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Just pondering the idea that this young woman was somehow unusually resourceful at 15...I don't think that's true at all tbh. It depends on the life you've lived surely. Her generation have had access to so much information and could do most of the arrangements online for example.


I think many 15 year olds are pretty capable of many things. Plenty around that age run away from home and end up in adventures/scrapes of various kinds.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And you were an idiot at 18. Nuff said.



This isn't fair IMO. I was really responsible and conscientious as a teen but I still managed to make fucking immature and reckless decisions. I just didn't have enough life experience to make better ones in those cases despite all of the other stuff I was getting 'right'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think many 15 year olds are pretty capable of many things. Plenty around that age run away from home and end up in adventures/scrapes of various kinds.



Well yeah of course. I was commenting on the whole planning/travel/info/connections aspect. It's at their fingertips now and was for them at 15  years ago.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think many 15 year olds are pretty capable of many things. Plenty around that age run away from home and end up in adventures/scrapes of various kinds.



Leaving your country of birth at 15 to join Daesh is far from an "adventure/scrape"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Leaving your country of birth at 15 to join Daesh is far from an "adventure/scrape"


I'll bet it felt like an adventure at the time.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> This isn't fair IMO. I was really responsible and conscientious as a teen but I still managed to make fucking immature and reckless decisions. I just didn't have enough life experience to make better ones in those cases despite all of the other stuff I was getting 'right'.



They admitted that themselves up thread


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'll bet it felt like an adventure at the time.



I doubt it. There were external factors at work I feel.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I doubt it. There were external factors at work I feel.


The two aren't mutually exclusive.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Leaving your country of birth at 15 to join Daesh is far from an "adventure/scrape"




The thing is, on some levels it really isn't. It's a politically specific adventure/scrap of our times. Like running away to join a cult. Something that thank fuck few young people are actually doing but it's very much representative of the complex nature of relationships, identities, loyalties and access to info that we all experience now.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> They admitted that themselves up thread



Yes I know but 'they' weren't just a twat..they were clearly getting other things right is my point.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Of course that unborn child is the most important thing ffs!
> 
> What risk to other lives are you on about?



Anyone that has to go over there to sort this mess out. Syria is far from safe anywhere. And the risk to anyone here that bringing her back might increase.

The baby is her responsibility when/if its born, as where the other two that died due to her decisions.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Anyone that has to go over there to sort this mess out. Syria is far from safe anywhere. And the risk to anyone here that bringing her back might increase.
> 
> The baby is her responsibility when/if its born, as where the other two that died due to her decisions.



Why would any relevant UK authorities need to travel to Syria when she's now in the UK?

As for your last snippet, fuck me!


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

I did some silly things in my youth.  I didn't, however, travel half way around the world to enthusiastically volunteer physical and emotional support to men whom I knew were raping, torturing, and murdering people, because I believed in their bigotry.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Why would any relevant UK authorities need to travel to Syria when she's now in the UK?


She's not in the UK.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I doubt it. There were external factors at work I feel.




Can you expand on this please?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> I did some silly things in my youth.  I didn't, however, travel half way around the world to enthusiastically volunteer physical and emotional support to men whom I knew were raping, torturing, and murdering people, because I believed in their bigotry.



At 15/16 when I joined the Forces, I had absolutely no idea of what the British State were doing in NI. 

This young girl was fucking coerced into something she didn't want to do, & you fuckin well know it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Can you expand on this please?



See my last post to the lawyer. Christ on a bike!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She's not in the UK.



My mistake!


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> This young girl was fucking coerced into something she didn't want to do, & you fuckin well know it.



Do you have the evidence for that, or it is just speculation?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> This young girl was fucking coerced into something she didn't want to do, & you fuckin well know it.


We really don't know that.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Do you have the evidence for that, or it is just speculation?



Evidence & speculation aside, what would your gut feeling be?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We really don't know that.



Bring her back & hang her then. Job done.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> At 15/16 when I joined the Forces, I had absolutely no idea of what the British State were doing in NI.
> 
> This young girl was fucking coerced into something she didn't want to do, & you fuckin well know it.



By the time she joined, what IS was doing was well known.  And I've seen no evidence of any coercion; she makes no such claim.  She's said nothing that suggests she didn't wholeheartedly embrace IS's murderous ideology, or, even that's she rejects it now!


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a bit whatabouterry, though. Of course the world is an awful place full of cunts and the cunts in power are the worst of the lot. But as chilango asked earlier, there is a solid practical problem for all of us here with people like this woman returning to the UK. How do we, as a society, deal with such a situation? Do we say and do nothing and just let them slip quietly back in? No doubt that has happened in one or two cases where people have flown under the radar, but when we know who they are and even help them to return? Then what do we do? I don't think the fact that the UK's political leaders also have blood on their hands helps to answer that question.



Much less of a challenge than that faced in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement when hundreds of people from opposing groups were released early from prison. Few of whom went back to armed struggle.



> In all, 428 terrorists, including 143 serving life sentences, had been released since the scheme began 22 months ago. Mass killers and bombers, many responsible for the worst atrocities during 30 years of violence in the province, walked free today to be welcomed by cheering supporters.
> 
> IRA men, UDA and UFF men, men from the UVF, LVF and INLA, they all walked. The prison service made sure the releases were phased and that republicans and loyalists did not bump into each other in the car parks of the high security prison. Indeed, they ensured rival loyalists were kept well apart from each other.



Redirect Notice


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Bring her back & hang her then. Job done.


Ok, so now it is your turn to be a dick.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> At 15/16 when I joined the Forces, I had absolutely no idea of what the British State were doing in NI.
> 
> This young girl was fucking coerced into something she didn't want to do, & you fuckin well know it.




Thank fuck you responded to that nonsense. I'll take it further, people like you, others I know, joined what you saw as worthy causes. Rape, murder, torture are not solely the realm of the likes of Daesh afterall.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> See my last post to the lawyer. Christ on a bike!



Yeah sorry I read that post you responded to and just stared at the screen in disbelief tbh, hence the delay.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> By the time she joined, what IS was doing was well known.  And I've seen no evidence of any coercion; she makes no such claim.


Indeed. She says:


> "I applied to marry an English-speaking fighter between 20 and 25 years old,"


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

As a Londoner I'm more likely to be killed by a tree than by a Jihadi terrorist, even a 19 year old one pushing a pram


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, so now it is your turn to be a dick.



I’ve been here long enough to prove that I’m not. But sometimes I do like to jump on the bandwagon


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> I’ve been here long enough to prove that I’m not. But sometimes I do like to jump on the bandwagon


You suggested a dichotomy of either she was coerced against her will or she is to be condemned in a way that precludes any possibility of redemption. I don't accept that dichotomy. fwiw I think it's unlikely she went against her will. She probably went rather enthusiastically. That means she has to take some responsibility for her actions, but it does not mean she is beyond redemption or deserves to be locked away forever.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> By the time she joined, what IS was doing was well known.  And I've seen no evidence of any coercion; she makes no such claim.



Yep, ISIS were around the height of their powers when Begum and her classmates ran away, they would have known all about the Yazidis, the beheading of hostages etc. - they ran away in Feb. 2015, about two weeks after ISIS made headlines around the world by releasing a video of a captured pilot being burned alive in a cage.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> Yep, ISIS were around the height of their powers when Begum and her classmates ran away, they would have known all about the Yazidis, the beheading of hostages etc. - they ran away in Feb. 2015, about two weeks after ISIS made headlines around the world by releasing a video of a captured pilot being burned alive in a cage.



Kids, eh? Always getting into scrapes.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You suggested a dichotomy of either she was coerced against her will or she is to be condemned in a way that precludes any possibility of redemption. I don't accept that dichotomy. fwiw I think it's unlikely she went against her will. She probably went rather enthusiastically. That means she has to take some responsibility for her actions, but it does not mean she is beyond redemption or deserves to be locked away forever.



Yet you couldn’t give a fuck about her unborn.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Yet you couldn’t give a fuck about her unborn.


Where have I said that???? I've said explicitly that I would support the idea that the UK govt helps her and her child to come back. Fucksake.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

See, the running away at 15 to make a radically new life in a political/religious project in a new country is an adventure - it would have been exciting to plan it and exciting to do it. A year later however it's no longer an adventure, it's a no longer exciting japes, it's something you've really committed to.

If she'd got there and three weeks later said 'shit, I think i've really fucked up here...' then my attitude would be very different.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> See, the running away at 15 to make a radically new life in a political/religious project in a new country is an adventure - it would have been exciting to plan it and exciting to do it. A year later however it's no longer an adventure, it's a no longer exciting japes, it's something you've really committed to.
> 
> If she'd got there and three weeks later said 'shit, I think i've really fucked up here...' then my attitude would be very different.


tbh this is kind of how I take her own comment that she's not that silly 15 year old any more.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> As a Londoner I'm more likely to be killed by a tree than by a Jihadi terrorist, even a 19 year old one pushing a pram


Is that an actual stat or made up bollocks? The thing is with suicide bombers is they have to pretty shit at it to get a second chance.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> See, the running away at 15 to make a radically new life in a political/religious project in a new country is an adventure - it would have been exciting to plan it and exciting to do it. A year later however it's no longer an adventure, it's a no longer exciting japes, it's something you've really committed to.
> 
> If she'd got there and three weeks later said 'shit, I think i've really fucked up here...' then my attitude would be very different.


However, 4 years later ... "my side are losing, I want to go home"


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where have I said that???? I've said explicitly that I would support the idea that the UK govt helps her and her child to come back. Fucksake.



It was Lyn. Apols


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Yet you couldn’t give a fuck about her unborn.



No that was me, I give next-to-no-fucks for her unborn as it's currently not a separate living thing to her. Probably won't give too much more of a fuck when she/he has been born. Probably totally heartless but there you go.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No that was me, I give next-to-no-fucks for her unborn. Probably totally heartless but there you go.



Quoted - goodnight!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No that was me, I give next-to-no-fucks for her unborn as it's currently not a separate living thing to her. Probably won't give too much more of a fuck when she/he has been born. Probably totally heartless but there you go.



Wow. Okay then.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Quoted - goodnight!



Nice selective edit.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

I don't wish her child (if and when he or she is born) any harm, but I see no reason to care about his or her fate any more than that of millions of other children, simply because his or her mother has a British passport.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

To be fair, there are probably quite a few destitute kids scattered around the world who are entitled to a British passport, not to mention all the rest.  Not sure why this particular tragedy is supposed to pull particularly on LynnDoyleCooper 's heartstrings.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

Crocodile tears innit.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> To be fair, there are probably quite a few destitute kids scattered around the world who are entitled to a British passport, not to mention all the rest.  Not sure why this particular tragedy is supposed to pull particularly on LynnDoyleCooper 's heartstrings.



Indeed. And there isn't a child about yet. She's a pregnant woman.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 14, 2019)

....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't wish her child any harm, but I see no reason to care about his or her fate any more than that of millions of other children, simply because his or her mother has a British passport.


As a general point of principle, I would hope that countries would look out for their citizens when they get into trouble abroad, even if they have done terrible things. As the world is set up today, to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in. As a former IS person, I can't think that she has anywhere else to go right now. And I take Spymaster's point on that - it is only now, as IS fails, that she seeks to come home - but that's not a reason not to help her/them. Rather it is a reason not necessarily to be too lenient with her when she does come back.


----------



## editor (Feb 14, 2019)

Sorry if I missed this, but how did her other two children die and how was the story verified?


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in.



That is nowhere near the situation we're in now. She's a UK citizen and that's not being withdrawn, not sure it can be legally either. All that has been said is they're not going to do anything to sort her mess out at the moment.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As a general point of principle, I would hope that countries would look out for their citizens when they get into trouble abroad, even if they have done terrible things. As the world is set up today, to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in. As a former IS person, I can't think that she has anywhere else to go right now. And I take Spymaster's point on that - it is only now, as IS fails, that she seeks to come home - but that's not a reason not to help her/them. Rather it is a reason not necessarily to be too lenient with her when she does come back.



I'm not the British state. I owe her nothing, and have very little sympathy for her situation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That is nowhere near the situation we're in now. She's a UK citizen and that's not being withdrawn, not sure it can be legally either. All that has been said is they're not going to do anything to sort her mess out at the moment.


It amounts to the same thing if she doesn't have travel documents. And given that she travelled on her sister's passport, we can assume that she does not have travel documents. 

So the question there is how much should she be helped...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'm not the British state. I owe her nothing, and have very little sympathy for her situation.


Well done.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It amounts to the same thing if she doesn't have travel documents. And given that she travelled on her sister's passport, we can assume that she does not have travel documents.



No it really doesn't at all. If I go abroad and lose my passport in no way am I anything approaching Stateless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No it really doesn't at all. If I go abroad and lose my passport in no way am I anything approaching Stateless.


You are if the British consulate tells you to go away.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> Sorry if I missed this, but how did her other two children die and how was the story verified?



According to the press, illness (compounded by a lack of medical supplies) and malnutrition.  We don't know the details, but it's possible that their deaths could have been avoided but for her commitment to IS.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

I'm not entirely indifferent to her unborn, i'm just not indifferent to other people either.

I'm not indifferent to the lives of those who would be tasked with going into Syria to get her/the child/both.

I'm not indifferent to the lives and fears of those who had no choice about having her housed in their street.

I'm not indifferent to the fears of the other parents at the child's school, all of whom would know - while they queue up to get their kids - that this woman regards their lives, and those of their children, as a sin against God: and one to be addressed by true believers like her.

I'm not indifferent to the good that the resources spent on her immediate safety, her de-radicalisation, her endless surveillance (a team of 30 watchers, all on between £25k and £40k) would do elsewhere.

It's about balancing and weighing competing risks and outcomes - and being grown-up enough to accept that sometimes a positive outcome has too high a price, and that some of the positive outcomes you would like to achieve are mutually incompatible, so you have to choose the one you feel most strongly about while ditching the others.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are if the British consulate tells you to go away.


Which they haven't in this case.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are if the British consulate tells you to go away.



<sigh> No, you're not. Go and have a read about what being Stateless and having no citizenship means. It's far from just your embassy telling you to get stuffed when you ask for help.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> As a general point of principle, I would hope that countries would look out for their citizens when they get into trouble abroad, even if they have done terrible things. As the world is set up today, to be stateless, which is what both she and her child would be if the UK abandoned them, is a rather hopeless state to be in. As a former IS person, I can't think that she has anywhere else to go right now. And I take Spymaster's point on that - it is only now, as IS fails, that she seeks to come home - but that's not a reason not to help her/them. Rather it is a reason not necessarily to be too lenient with her when she does come back.




Thinking back to the reasons someone like this young woman and her friends ended up in the Daesh/IS cult...is the argument that they were simply seduced with being the brides of murdering fundamentalists who just happened to think that was the way to go? Or can some of this actually be put into context in terms of what young people like them would have been told and believed was/is the arguments for such?

Fucking hell. _Shock and awe_...but clearly unimpressed, for example.

Her unborn child. I imagine she wondered about the value of the lives and children of others before she committed to what she did. How many do we count? How many have been mentioned on this thread?


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

MrSki said:


> Is that an actual stat or made up bollocks? The thing is with suicide bombers is they have to pretty shit at it to get a second chance.



I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks. 
About 14 people have been  killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.


The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're  very low down on the list of real urban dangers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I'm not entirely indifferent to her unborn, i'm just not indifferent to other people either.
> 
> I'm not indifferent to the lives of those who would be tasked with going into Syria to get her/the child/both.
> 
> ...


There is an additional consideration, and that is a simple principle. I'm not necessarily advocating someone risking their life to save her (she scarcely deserves it), but if at some point there is a chance to bring her back to the UK safely - which involves getting money to her, for instance, which consulates do do in exceptional circumstances - that principle would kick in: she is a problem, but she is _our problem_, so you bring her back here regardless of other consequences. Ditching or being _flexible_ with that principle itself has dangerous consequences.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks.
> About 14 people have been  killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.
> 
> 
> The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're  very low down on the list of real urban dangers.



That's a flawed way of thinking about risk. You could have said the same in the early days of the rise of Nazism.


----------



## LDC (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks.
> About 14 people have been  killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.
> 
> The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're  very low down on the list of real urban dangers.



So only what happens in London (or the UK) is important in understanding the totality of possible risk and consequences?

Do you think you might not be in possession of many of the facts about this topic?


----------



## MrSki (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks.
> About 14 people have been  killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.
> 
> 
> The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're  very low down on the list of real urban dangers.


I only ask because I have never known any Londoner killed by a tree but I have known one person murdered & another two who have been injured in terrorist attacks. If you go back 15 years then the number murdered goes up by 48.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is an additional consideration, and that is a simple principle. I'm not necessarily advocating someone risking their life to save her, but if at some point there is a chance to bring her back to the UK safely - which involves getting money to her, for instance, which consulates do do in exceptional circumstances - that principle would kick in: she is a problem, and she is _our problem_, so you bring her back here regardless of other consequences. Ditching or being _flexible_ with that principle itself has dangerous consequences.



See, I don't see her as being part of 'us' anymore, and therefore I don't see her as being 'our' problem - her unborn is slightly different, but only so far as being a child in need of being somewhere a long way from its biological parents, ideally never knowing who they were. 

I'll happily help the child, but I wouldn't piss on the woman if she was on fire.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> That's a flawed way of thinking about risk. You could have said the same in the early days of the rise of Nazism.



Have you at the Michel Houellebecq again? We are clearly not on the verge of the country becoming a Caliphate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 14, 2019)

kebabking said:


> See, I don't see her as being part of 'us' anymore, and therefore I don't see her as being 'our' problem - her unborn is slightly different, but only so far as being a child in need of being somewhere a long way from its biological parents, ideally never knowing who they were.
> 
> I'll happily help the child, but I wouldn't piss on the woman if she was on fire.


I feel a little different, but I can't particularly argue with that. But I do think states ditching that 'us' bit is a dangerous thing in and of itself - if, as in this case, the person wants to come back. Even if, as in this case, the likely outcome is that she is sent to prison for a stretch as soon as she comes back.


----------



## tim (Feb 14, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> So only what happens in London (or the UK) is important in understanding the totality of possible risk and consequences?
> 
> Do you think you might not be in possession of many of the facts about this topic?



As I was responding to a response to this comment I made



> As a Londoner I'm more likely to be killed by a tree than by a Jihadi terrorist, even a 19 year old one pushing a pram



It was obviously the relevant answer to give. Do try and keep up with the statement in my original post.

And anyway the consequences of and risks posed by a pregnant nineteen year old returning to London, which is the topic of this thread, are clearly London linked consequences and risks. I can't see her returning to London would have much effect on the lives of the people or urban fabric of Tokyo, Berlin, Toulouse, Sao Paolo or even Swansea.


----------



## A380 (Feb 14, 2019)

It sad to see the innocence of childhood fade away and this story of a 15 year old who ran away to a state that sought to expand by the use of suicide bombers as a recognised tactic is a tragic example of that loss of innocence.

They blow up so fast don’t they.


( Sorry. If there were a hell I’d be going)


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> Have you at the Michel Houellebecq again? We are clearly not on the verge of the country becoming a Caliphate.



I didn't say we are. But that risk of a rising movement cannot be accurately calculated solely on historic quantitative data.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 14, 2019)

tim said:


> I can think of at least two vague acquaintances killed in tree related incidents and none in terror attacks.
> About 14 people have been  killed in London inJihadi attacks over the last decade. Google shows a fair few people die every year because they drive into a tree, fall out of one, or are crushed by one falling upon them.
> 
> 
> The main point is though whilst terrorist attacks make the headlines, they're  very low down on the list of real urban dangers.


I'd rather stand next to a tree than a suicide bomber, if that OK with you.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 14, 2019)

editor said:


> Sorry if I missed this, but how did her other two children die and how was the story verified?



She's said both children died in the last few months from malnutrition and a lack of medicine, according to the BBC. I don't think the story's been verified independently, doesn't seem like it would be easy to do so.



> Her first child, a girl, died at the age of one year and nine months, and was buried in Baghuz a month ago.
> 
> Her second child - the first to die - died three months ago at the age of eight months, of an illness that was compounded by malnutrition, the Times reports.
> 
> She told the paper she took him to a hospital. "There were no drugs available, and not enough medical staff," she said.


----------



## Smangus (Feb 14, 2019)

Tonight, completely coincidentally,  I saw a mate who I haven't seen for about 2 years, turns out he was caught up in the attacks in Barcelona and after 9 operations  is now blind in his right eye which is the most obvious injury . Let alone the ptsd he has had to put up with or other physical injuries he had and has overcome. He has visibly aged and was clearly affected deeply by it despite putting on a brave face. I didn't ask him too much about it as we were chatting about other shit and I was working. He is a victim of the organisation that she (still?) supports and there are many thousands of others that are also and who are now dead.  

She has stated she has no regrets, she has stated she is not silly girl any more and even if she was at 15 I bet she grew up pretty fucking quick in that environment. She states that Deash do not *deserve , *interesting choice of words*, *to win- why not? Probably because she thinks they are weak, not because their ideals are disgusting or that she disagrees with them. 

She has only 1 aim - to live in peace with her kid. How many thousands of victims of Deash would have liked to have this opportunity? 

I'm glad the gvt has stated it won't risk lives to get her back her, there are far more deserving cases out there which aren't getting support so why should she? If she gets herself to a consulate then she can get the same (lack of) help as anyone else.  If she gets back to the UK I hope she's convicted of something and they take the child put it into care and she never ever sees it again. 

As far as I am concerned the money that would be spent on her should be spent assisting the victims, she can get to fuck, a complete wrongun.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> A win/win.



You're a nasty piece of work you are.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're all at a loss, aren't we? Norway has just about the highest living standard in the world, extensive social security networks, etc, yet it produced Anders Breivik. I don't think there are clear answers to any of this stuff. Even in a virtually ideal society, people would come along who would do terrible shit.
> 
> Aside from the obvious - stop starting wars and get out of the ones you've already started - I don't have any particular ideas wrt Britain, although 'don't start wars' is a very good place to start, I think, if you're serious about not producing violent extremists.



You're at a loss. I'm not. 




littlebabyjesus said:


> Let's not go overboard the other way though. She knew exactly what IS were and what they did before she went, and her reaction to it was 'can I join in?'



That's complete bullshit.


----------



## Athos (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're a nasty piece of work you are.



For not having a lot of sympathy for a keen and unrepentant supporter of a brutal, authoritarian regime which committed mass rape, torture, and murder, motivated by racism, misogyny, homophobia, and religious hate.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Fucking state of this thread. If you want someone to blame for Daesh then you can start with Dubya and Blair. Don't see anyone demanding social services intervene in their lives. 



Smangus said:


> even if she was at 15 I bet she grew up pretty fucking quick in that environment.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 14, 2019)

I think we should put her in charge of Brexit negotiations


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 14, 2019)

Athos said:


> For not having a lot of sympathy for a keen and unrepentant supporter of a brutal, authoritarian regime which committed mass rape, torture, and murder, motivated by racism, misogyny, homophobia, and religious hate.



No - for describing a situation in which an innocent child suffers as "win/win". 

Although for the record, if I was picking you up on your opposition to bigotry I'd probably highlight your transphobia and call you a hypocrite.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fucking state of this thread. If you want someone to blame for Daesh then you can start with Dubya and Blair. Don't see anyone demanding social services intervene in their lives.



SSSSsssh now. Apparently that's not relevant in the slightest and has no bearing as to why a young'un form Bethnal green saw fit to brutalise herself as a member of the daesh cult. She heard they were fanatics, murders, rapists etc and thought waheyyyyyyyyyyyyy! Have it!


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 14, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you want someone to blame for Daesh then you can start with Dubya and Blair. Don't see anyone demanding social services intervene in their lives.


Here we go again


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2019)

We've all done silly things as a young adult.  Drank your parents booze, smashed up a bus stop, threw lit fireworks into a park bin... Jumped on a plane to go and join a murderess rreligious sect. 

Just teenage larks innit.


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2019)

I reckon Jack Strawer is worse than Gehardy John. If you think about it. That taxi driver who got beheaded in Iraq, remember him? Basically that's because of the minimum wage you voted for Labour. Your fault actually.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Here we go again



Who's to blame for Daesh? Western imperialism or fucked up kids from Bethnal Green?


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2019)

Remember the Jordanian pilot they burned to death? Well yeah, you better fucking remember. you made that happen because you cravenly exercised your democratic right to vote for a party, who which are basically like all the other parties and just a different facet of neo liberalist capitalist destruction. You practically lit the match, you disgusting hipocritical monsters

e2a, my bad. Sorry. Jordanian.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

xenon said:


> We've all done silly things as a young adult.  Drank your parents booze, smashed up a bus stop, threw lit fireworks into a park bin... Jumped on a plane to go and join a murderess rreligious sect.
> 
> Just teenage larks innit.



No. That is not what is being said. When you run away from home, for real, that is NOT a teenage lark like getting in a bit of trouble or having a rowdy party. When a 15 year old leaves their home and their community they do that because they do not want to be there any more, regardless of how bad the alternative is, and they don't believe anyone will help them either.


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who's to blame for Daesh? Western imperialism or fucked up kids from Bethnal Green?



Your mum?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's complete bullshit.


No it's not. Four years ago I was aware of most of the shit IS were up to. She looked into it. She will have known much better than me. The idea that she didn't have any idea that they were a bunch of murdering cunts is absurd. Of course she knew. And her reaction was 'can I join?'


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Western imperialism ...


Yaaaaaawn


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> No. That is not what is being said. When you run away from home, for real, that is NOT a teenage lark like getting in a bit of trouble or having a rowdy party. When a 15 year old leaves their home and their community they do that because they do not want to be there any more, regardless of how bad the alternative is, and they don't believe anyone will help them either.



Yeah, and they all join isis. Or except they don't. so what's your point?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who's to blame for Daesh? Western imperialism or fucked up kids from Bethnal Green?


In fairness, I don't think this is an either/or situation.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it's not. Four years ago I was aware of most of the shit IS were up to. She looked into it. She will have known much better than me. The idea that she didn't have any idea that they were a bunch of murdering cunts is absurd. Of course she knew. And her reaction was 'can I join?'



She was 15. 

She was born in 2000. 

She was Muslim.

She lived her whole life in a country where Muslims were demonised every single day in the media. Where she was told she was the enemy. Where far right groups formed specifically to target her. 

Never mind the stuff we don't know about her. What might have been happening at school or at home. Just look at the stuff we know. 

You're a lot slacker on the anti racist stuff when it doesn't concern the single market, aren't you?


----------



## TopCat (Feb 15, 2019)

It's not going to go down well if she makes it back and then is housed at public expense because of her sex and her kid


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> She was 15.
> 
> She was born in 2000.
> 
> ...


So now I'm a racist because I suggest she had some idea what IS were about? fuck's sake man. None of what you say about growing up here precludes that, and no doubt it contributed to her state of mind. But she went out there believing she was taking part in a jihad, building an Islamic state, and wanted to marry a fighter there. She knew she was going to a war zone and she wanted to be a part of it. She will also have known _at the very least_ that they captured and killed people. 

I actually give her more credit than you appear to be doing. You don't appear to grant her any agency in this at all.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it's not. Four years ago I was aware of most of the shit IS were up to. She looked into it. She will have known much better than me. The idea that she didn't have any idea that they were a bunch of murdering cunts is absurd. Of course she knew. And her reaction was 'can I join?'


You are reaching all over the place with this. You have zero idea what info she was reading and believing at the time. Sure you can argue she should have and could have known better/more but not that she did! Seriously, you are usually more measured about the stuff you actually can't know...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So now I'm a racist because I suggest she had some idea what IS were about? fuck's sake man. None of what you say about growing up here precludes that, and no doubt it contributed to her state of mind. But she went out there believing she was taking part in a jihad, building an Islamic state, and wanted to marry a fighter there. She knew she was going to a war zone and she wanted to be a part of it. She will also have known _at the very least_ that they captured and killed people.
> 
> I actually give her more credit than you appear to be doing. You don't appear to grant her any agency in this at all.



I don't know why I'm responding to you really when there's far worse on here I'm too sickened by to respond to...

But I'm not saying she didn't have agency. She chose to do what she did. Not really what I'm saying though is it? 

She chose that. And you're saying that means she's irredeemable. I'm saying I can't believe you would say such a thing, without even thinking about why she chose that. 

Do you think a happy, healthy, well looked after teenager does that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You are reaching all over the place with this. You have zero idea what info she was reading and believing at the time. Sure you can argue she should have and could have known better/more but not that she did! Seriously, you are usually more measured about the stuff you actually can't know...


No the reaching is the pretence that perhaps she somehow didn't know what IS were about. She may not have known fully, but a pretty good idea? Yes. That's why she went.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> She chose that. And you're saying that means she's irredeemable.


ffs not this again. You can't be arsed to read my posts? Fine. But do me the courtesy of not making up crap that I haven't said. If you read back I've specifically said exactly the opposite many times.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> And you're saying that means she's irredeemable.


He's said nothing of the sort. In fact he's suggested quite the opposite.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't know why I'm responding to you really when there's far worse on here I'm too sickened by to respond to...
> 
> But I'm not saying she didn't have agency. She chose to do what she did. Not really what I'm saying though is it?
> 
> ...


What would YOU suggest should happen to her?


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2019)

Young muslim women, your agency is non existent when men on the interwebs need to make shit anti imperialist arguments.

Where's Magnus or Santino. Don't make me do all this...


----------



## Riklet (Feb 15, 2019)

Funny that most of the people she oppressed and abused inevitably in her role as a slave-owning IS fighter trophy wife happen to be Muslim as well. And probably women.  #intersectionaloppresion

Or if they were Yazidi, even worse, and careful reading the grim grim grim acounts and stories online, snowflakes who feel sorry for this monstrous teenager.

"We" did not create this young woman.  This is a cop out when it comes to moral decisions.  Obviously societal factors are key, and hugely important, but if you decide to rob people for a living, chuck acid on people, murder civilians in concentration camps or in her case, run off and join IS and stay for 4 years, at some point it all comes down to your own moral agency.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 15, 2019)

She's was a kid. Still is. Who knows, she could grow up to be a tory councillor, or something.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

Also not sure why she should be front of the queue to be rescued from a war zone (simply by virtue of her nationality)


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

Riklet said:


> "We" did not create this young woman.  This is a cop out when it comes to moral decisions.  Obviously societal factors are key, and hugely important, but if you decide to rob people for a living, chuck acid on people, murder civilians in concentration camps or in her case, run off and join IS and stay for 4 years, at some point it all comes down to your own moral agency.


No no no ... western imperialism ... Bush ... Blair ... the army ... Saudi Arabia ...


----------



## Riklet (Feb 15, 2019)

Fred West, victim of Gloucester's shittiness.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 15, 2019)

Riklet said:


> "We" did not create this young woman.  This is a cop out when it comes to moral decisions.  Obviously societal factors are key, and hugely important, but if you decide to rob people for a living, chuck acid on people, murder civilians in concentration camps or in her case, run off and join IS and stay for 4 years, at some point it all comes down to your own moral agency.



Oddly, I use to think the same of IRA folks. That they simply came out of nowhere, just like that & were into it purely for the kicks.

If you grow up being demonised on a daily basis, being told that you're different and that you're a terrorist... hardly surprising a few people are going to get radicalised.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ffs not this again. You can't be arsed to read my posts? Fine. But do me the courtesy of not making up crap that I haven't said. If you read back I've specifically said exactly the opposite many times.



Alright, you didn't say she was irredeemable. You said she knew what she was getting in to. 



xenon said:


> Young muslim women, your agency is non existent when men on the interwebs need to make shit anti imperialist arguments.
> 
> Where's Magnus or Santino. Don't make me do all this...



It's nothing to do with agency. She has agency. She made choices. We all have agency, we all make choices. Doesn't mean we do it from a position of full knowledge - especially when we're 15. I'm talking about imperialism because people have suggested messed up kids from London are responsible for the existence of Daesh. Daesh had a recruitment strategy - part of which was to target disaffected marginalised Muslim youth in the West. Guess what? It worked with some of them. It worked precisely because of imperialism in the Middle East and a rise in racism and Islamophobia in the West. 



Saul Goodman said:


> What would YOU suggest should happen to her?



All this is all the more annoying by the way because what I actually suggested should happen had nothing to do with the girl - I said either she makes it to a consulate and she'll go through interrogation/criminal charges/social services, or she won't and won't ever come back to Britain, and I thought it was a non story that didn't need to be reported on. 

What I said should happen is people here should stop expressing opinions on how dangerous she is, how consciously evil she was capable of being at 15, and whether or not it was a risk.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Alright, you didn't say she was irredeemable. You said she knew what she was getting in to.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you not consider her a risk?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 15, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you not consider her a risk?



I do.
The vast majority of Muslims I've met have been perfectly nice people, but I'm a bit concerned about the extremist minority.
The question of her return and potential punishment has to be considered very carefully, and without any political bias.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

Strange post


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 15, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I do.
> The vast majority of Muslims I've met have been perfectly nice people, but I'm a bit concerned about the extremist minority.
> The question of her return and potential punishment has to be considered very carefully, and without any political bias.


I don't know what the score is. Did she commit a crime in the UK? 
I have no idea how laws work around such a scenario, but, if I was in charge of the the lettings in, I'm fucked if I'd let her back in. She could rot in the hellhole of her choosing, because the only way to guarantee she wouldn't be a threat, would be to lock her up at taxpayer's expense. Fuck that, you make your bed, you cry in it.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 15, 2019)

She is a British citizen with a British passport, we are legally bound to let her in. Besides, what right do we have to palm her off on somewhere else. 
Has anyone mentioned at 8 months pregnant, she can't fly, no one will take her.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 15, 2019)

hash tag said:


> She is a British citizen with a British passport, we are legally bound to let her in. Besides, what right do we have to palm her off on somewhere else.
> Has anyone mentioned at 8 months pregnant, she can't fly, no one will take her.


I know nothing about her or her circumstances, but, in fairness, she already palmed herself on on someone else. If she does return to the UK, should she be allowed back into the general populace, or should she be locked up?


----------



## hash tag (Feb 15, 2019)

Let the legal system Takes its course as I'm in really no position to judge.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> No - for describing a situation in which an innocent child suffers as "win/win".
> 
> Although for the record, if I was picking you up on your opposition to bigotry I'd probably highlight your transphobia and call you a hypocrite.



I've no desire to see her child suffer (albeit I see no particular reason to do more for him our her than for the millions of other children in terrible situations).

Transphobia.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you want someone to blame for Daesh then you can start with Dubya and Blair.


It's not an either/or.  Nobody's arguing that they're blameless, or that their actions and lots of other factors played no part in making this woman what she is.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So, who wants to sit next to her on the tube?



Alternatively, if you are frightened of visiting London (or major city) or frightened of using the tube, they have won. They have disrupted your life and clearly got their "point" across. They have stopped you from enjoying these things or maybe even stopped you from doing them.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you not consider her a risk?



Where did I say that? Lots of people are a risk. I think you're a risk. Lots of people in this country right now are a risk. Some of them might even be white!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> It's not an either/or.  Nobody's arguing that they're blameless, or that their actions and lots of other factors played no part in making this woman what she is.



What was that win/win bullshit then?


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

In her recent interview, she alludes to having seen Daesh propaganda videos before she joined. One such video circulating in the weeks before she went showed a man being burned alive. It was also on the front pages of the papers and top story on the news. Quite apart from what she must have subsequently seen first hand, the idea that, by 2015, a 15 year old in Briton who had access to the internet and an interest in Daesh might not have known (at least some) of the horrors they were committing is laughably implausible, and suggests a desperation excuse the inexcusable (and it is inexcusable notwithstanding the role western governments played in creating an environment in which it was possible for Daesh to recruit her).  Especially as she's not even claiming not to have been aware of what Daesh were doing; quite the opposite - even now, she seems comfortable with atrocities like beheading enemies of Islam.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What was that win/win bullshit then?


It was a reflection of my lack of sympathy for her.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 15, 2019)

Aside from how you feel about her as an individual, can I say that I’d reserve a harsher punishment for newspaper editors who run headlines about her having a baby ‘on the NHS’. Fuck right off with that ‘you pay for this’ narrative, it’s more toxic and costs more lives than daesh ever will. 

Leveraging the issue for an attack on universalism is scraping the barrel.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> It was a reflection of my lack of sympathy for her.



So much for understanding the different factors that led her there.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So much for understanding the different factors that led her there.



I understand them; I don't think they excuse her conduct to the extent that I have sympathy for her current plight.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 15, 2019)

[QUOTE="Riklet, post: 15931841, member: 18282"

"We" did not create this young woman.  This is a cop out when it comes to moral decisions.  Obviously societal factors are key, and hugely important, but if you decide to rob people for a living, chuck acid on people, murder civilians in concentration camps or in her case, run off and join IS and stay for 4 years, at some point it all comes down to your own moral agency.[/QUOTE]

One of the oddest things about much of the left is that they’ve forgotten this basic truth about humanity.

The agency of humans is washed away in this analysis and everything explained by external factors and pressures. As you say these are significant and important but given that not everyone born Muslim and living in Bethnal Green went off to Syria to join a medieval cult can’t be the whole story.

It’s a risible explanation as the ‘teenage jinks that got out of hand’ one.


----------



## Edie (Feb 15, 2019)

I’ve read the whole thread. Still have no idea what’s right. Really can see the side that says fuck her, but then I think she’s a young woman with a baby and I find that hard to do.

Maybe best her family go and bring her back? Would that be possible?


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

Edie said:


> I’ve read the whole thread. Still have no idea what’s right. Really can see the side that says fuck her, but then I think she’s a young woman with a baby and I find that hard to do.
> 
> Maybe best her family go and bring her back? Would that be possible?



There'd be a lot of practical difficulties e.g. her being too pregnant to fly, the risk to the family, whether or not she has a passport, etc.


----------



## Edie (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> There'd be a lot of practical difficulties e.g. her being too pregnant to fly, the risk to the family, whether or not she has a passport, etc.


True. 

It’s just difficult to say leave her, fuck her. Partly due to the age she was when she left, partly because she’s a young pregnant woman and there’s soon to be a newborn involved. Anyway I’ve nothing useful to add here.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

Edie said:


> True.
> 
> It’s just difficult to say leave her, fuck her. Partly due to the age she was when she left, partly because she’s a young pregnant woman and there’s soon to be a newborn involved. Anyway I’ve nothing useful to add here.



There's loads of people in refugee camps I'd like to help before her.  Young people and pregnant people. People who are there through no fault of their own.

I guess that, if and when her child is born, he or she would fall into that category - I'd have no issue with the kid being taken in, not least of all to minimise the chance of her poisoning his or her mind with the vicious ideology to which it appears she still subscribes.

But I find the expectation that I should have solidarity with this bigot because of the accident of our births - that we're both 'British' - a bizarre position for anyone who claims to be on the left to adopt.


----------



## A380 (Feb 15, 2019)

What is it about this perverted form of Islam that gets a very few on the left to take such contrary views to the ones they normally hold about gender equality, LGBT rights and , well just not being fascist slave holding dicks really?

This is a genuine question BTW not intended to be a hand grenade.


----------



## chilango (Feb 15, 2019)

Perhaps a different, more useful, way of looking at this is to stop thinking about _her_ behaviour and start thinking about _ours_.

What sort of values and ethics would we like to emphasize in these kinds of situations?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 15, 2019)

A380 said:


> What is it about this perverted form of Islam that gets a very few on the left to take such contrary views to the ones they normally hold about gender equality, LGBT rights and , well just not being fascist slave holding dicks really?
> 
> This is a genuine question BTW not intended to be a hand grenade.


I don't think the "that's just their culture" typical airhead defence  is limited to Islam at all, for example this Slovakian guy that worked at the home I'm in was struck off the SSSC register for numerous complaints , one being sexual harassment of women there. The guy advocating for him said that he was behaving like that towards women because of his culture. I hear that all the time, it's just the Islam stuff is more prominent.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

chilango said:


> Perhaps a different, more useful, way of looking at this is to stop thinking about _her_ behaviour and start thinking about _ours_.
> 
> What sort of values and ethics would we like to emphasize in these kinds of situations?



A robust and uncompromising resistance to fascism in all its forms.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 15, 2019)

chilango said:


> Perhaps a different, more useful, way of looking at this is to stop thinking about _her_ behaviour and start thinking about _ours_.
> 
> What sort of values and ethics would we like to emphasize in these kinds of situations?



That if you make a choice to join a group of religious nutters who like killing people who disagree with them, that's up to you, but don't expect anyone to put themselves at risk in order to rescue you.

Which is what's happening.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> A robust and uncompromising resistance to fascism in all its forms.


Woah, come on now baby steps


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 15, 2019)

I suppose a lot depends on what she did while she was out there.
If she was just an idiot with high ideals but didn't commit or support any acts of violence, that would be different to her taking an active role in such things.

As I don't know either way, it's hard to form an opinion.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I suppose a lot depends on what she did while she was out there.
> If she was just an idiot with high ideals but didn't commit or support any acts of violence, that would be different to her taking an active role in such things.
> 
> As I don't know either way, it's hard to form an opinion.



The role for which she volunteered - wife of an IS fighter - provides physical and emotional support to the men who make up IS.  It implicates such volunteers in the crimes of the organisation.  These aren't some poor local girls with no choices, whose husbands join up against their wishes; they're people who actively chose to support the IS project.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The role for which she volunteered - wife of an IS fighter - provides physical and emotional support to the men who make up IS.  It implicates such volunteers in the crimes of the organisation.  These aren't some poor local girls with no choices, whose husbands join up against their wishes; they're people who actively chose to support the IS project.


A formal judgement of such will only occur on her return to the UK, of course.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> A formal judgement of such will only occur on her return to the UK, of course.



A state judgment, yes. Meantime, I can make my own.  Based not least of all upon her own account!


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> A state judgment, yes. Meantime, I can make my own.  Based not least of all upon her own account!


Of course, but with the ususal caveats that all of what we know of her "own account" has been mediated by the Murdoch press based upon an interview conducted in a potentially lethal environment.


----------



## Chilli.s (Feb 15, 2019)

There's only so much compassion to go round and there are more needy cases than hers. I find it hard to give a rats arse what happens to her. This causes me too much internal conflict so I wont engage further.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Of course, but with the ususal caveats that all of what we know of her "own account" has been mediated by the Murdoch press based upon an interview conducted in a potentially lethal environment.



The words appear to be her own, and the fact that she felt able to say that the Caliphate had lost its way to the extent that she doesn't think it deserves to win suggest you me that she's not overly fearful of reprisals. Which tends to suggest that she we truthful when she volunteered that she was unfazed by beheadings of enemies of Islam, rather than express remorse for her involvement with Daesh. There's no reason to think she's anything other than an adherent to the IS ideology that initially attracted her to join.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The words appear to be her own, and the fact that she felt able to say that the Caliphate had lost its way to the extent that she doesn't think it deserves to win suggest you me that she's not overly fearful of reprisals. Which tends to suggest that she we truthful when she volunteered that she was unfazed by beheadings of enemies of Islam, rather than express remorse for her involvement with Daesh. There's no reason to think she's anything other than an adherent to the IS ideology that initially attracted her to join.


Well obviously, we're also free to speculate on how her comments relate to her present surroundings/security etc....but speculation is just that, isn't it?


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Well obviously, we're also free to speculate on how her comments relate to her present surroundings/security etc....but speculation is just that, isn't it?



Well, 'speculation' is a pejorative descriptor; equally, you could call it 'weighing up all the evidence we have'.  It's all any of us can do.


----------



## inva (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The words appear to be her own, and the fact that she felt able to say that the Caliphate had lost its way to the extent that she doesn't think it deserves to win suggest you me that she's not overly fearful of reprisals.


that might not be too out of keeping with other IS militants. i don't know how they have ideologically responded to their military defeats as a group, but it wouldn't be too surprising if they viewed it sort of fatalistically as a case of them not having been pure/worthy enough and it not being gods will that they won. i have seen comments reported from individual fighters along those lines at least.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

She condemned them for torturing their own, based on her husband's reports from one of their prisons. That doesn't sound on message.


----------



## inva (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She condemned them for torturing their own, based on her husband's reports from one of their prisons. That doesn't sound on message.


maybe not with what remains of it as an organised group, but with other individual militants/ex-militants it might be different. but i suppose there's really not much point in me guessing about it anyway.


----------



## Cloo (Feb 15, 2019)

I found it very weighted that the Metro headline was about 'Jihadi bride wants her baby *on the NHS*', as if how dare she use our precious NHS. It's rather different if you look at it as British girl wants to have her baby somewhere it won't die unlike her last two.

Yes I also get being unsympathetic to her, but it doesn't mean get baby ought to suffer the consequences of her foolishness.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Well, 'speculation' is a pejorative descriptor; equally, you could call it 'weighing up all the evidence we have'.  It's all any of us can do.


If you perceive the term speculation as pejorative then I suppose it is, but the word is not inherently pejorative, it merely describes the formulation of an idea without all of the evidence. I'd say that pretty much sums up where we are with this, wouldn't you?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

inva said:


> maybe not with what remains of it as an organised group, but with other individual militants/ex-militants it might be different. but i suppose there's really not much point in me guessing about it anyway.



She has described the death of her two children, she has described her husband witnessing the torture of devout Muslims in an Isis prison, she has described the corruption of a 'Caliphate' she no longer believes deserves to win. I am struggling to see what would be so much more dangerous about her saying. 'Yeah, with hindsight I might have been better off staying at home.'


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

brogdale said:


> If you perceive the term speculation as pejorative then I suppose it is, but the word is not inherently pejorative, it merely describes the formulation of an idea without all of the evidence. I'd say that pretty much sums up where we are with this, wouldn't you?



Yes.  Though I'd say we almost never have ALL the evidence when reaching any judgement.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She has described the death of her two children, she has described her husband witnessing the torture of devout Muslims in an Isis prison, she has described the corruption of a 'Caliphate' she no longer believes deserves to win. I am struggling to see what would be so much more dangerous about her saying. 'Yeah, with hindsight I might have been better off staying at home.'



The obvious answer is that the reason she doesn't say that isn't fear, but because, fundamentally, she still believes in the ideology of a Caliphate and its corollary ideas e.g. the beheading of enemies of Islam.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The obvious answer is that the reason she doesn't say that isn't fear, but because, fundamentally, she still believes in the ideology of a Caliphate and its corollary ideas e.g. the beheading of enemies of Islam.



Ocram's razor would suggest that this conclusion shouldn't be dismissed as wild speculation at the very least.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Ocram's razor would suggest that this conclusion shouldn't be dismissed as wild speculation at the very least.



I was a whisker away from referring to Occam's razor, too.


----------



## inva (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She has described the death of her two children, she has described her husband witnessing the torture of devout Muslims in an Isis prison, she has described the corruption of a 'Caliphate' she no longer believes deserves to win. I am struggling to see what would be so much more dangerous about her saying. 'Yeah, with hindsight I might have been better off staying at home.'


i think the point i'm trying to make is that other IS members or sympathisers where she is don't necessarily hold the view that all was well with the caliphate either, even if they remain supporters of the cause.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

inva said:


> i think the point i'm trying to make is that other IS members or sympathisers where she is don't necessarily hold the view that all was well with the caliphate either, even if they remain supporters of the cause.



Fine, but if they're happy for her to go off to _The Times_ and spill the beans about what a shit show the whole affair was and how she just wants to go home, I'm struggling to see what problem there would be with her saying, in hindsight I wish I'd had no part in it.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

A380 said:


> What is it about this perverted form of Islam that gets a very few on the left to take such contrary views to the ones they normally hold about gender equality, LGBT rights and , well just not being fascist slave holding dicks really?
> 
> This is a genuine question BTW not intended to be a hand grenade.



This is not about being somehow soft on ISIS. It's about getting someone out of a shitty situation. Whatever the choices people make, particularly at such a young age they deserve a second chance. I'd say the same for a teenager who got involved in Neo-Nazi groups, or going backs a couple of decades Loyalist or Republican paramilitary groups, the far left continental terrorism of the 70s or contemporary street gang violence.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> This is not about being somehow soft on ISIS. It's about getting someone out of a shitty situation. Whatever the choices people make, particularly at such a young age they deserve a second chance. I'd say the same for a teenager who got involved in Neo-Nazi groups, or going backs pulled of decades Loyalist or Republican paramilitary groups. Or the far left continental terrorism of the 70s



Doesn't that depend upon them wanting a second chance i.e. expressing remorse for, and a repudiation of, their previous position?  Or would you be keen to help those who still believe in Nazism, but just want to avail themselves of the NHS? And on what basis would you favour getting a loyalist paramilitary out of trouble over any of the millions of other people who've never been involved in such activity?  Purely nationalism i.e. that they are British?


----------



## inva (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Fine, but if they're happy for her to go off to _The Times_ and spill the beans about what a shit show the whole affair was and how she just wants to go home, I'm struggling to see what problem there would be with her saying, in hindsight I wish I'd had no part in it.


maybe there wouldn't be a problem, i don't know. i think there's a reasonable chance she is speaking openly, and now i'm not really sure what we're arguing about if anything


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Doesn't that depend upon them wanting a second chance i.e. expressing remorse for, and a repudiation of, their previous position?  Or would you be keen to help those who still believe in Nazism?



Firstly, in this case it's about getting someone out of harm's way. But in general people often need structured support if they are going to change.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Firstly, in this case it's about getting someone out of harm's way. But in general people often need structured support if they are going to change.



So would you do your best to get, say, an unrepentant neo-nazi out of harm's way, in the hope that he would change, in preference to helping  others e.g. the blameless victims of fascism, because of nationalism i.e. if the neo-nazi happens to be British?


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> So would you do your best to get, say, unrepentant neo-nazis out of harm's way, in the hope that they would change, in preference to helping  others e.g. the blameless victims of fascism, because of nationalism i.e. if the neo-nazi happens to be British?



It's not an either or. You support the victims but you also help the victimizers get to a better place.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> It's not an either or. You support the victims but you also help the victimizers get to a better place.



It's a lovely liberal sentiment, but, really, it's a cop out.  In the current situation, it *is* an either/or; there's limited resources (if only insofar as the order in which it's practically possible to help people).  If you had to decide to use them to help an unrepentant British neo-nazi or a blameless victim of fascism, which would you choose, and why?

You have a dichotomy: be consistent and end in a moral absurdity; or, be inconsistent and reveal how your attitude to this case reeks of paternalism and orientalism.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The obvious answer is that the reason she doesn't say that isn't fear, but because, fundamentally, she still believes in the ideology of a Caliphate and its corollary ideas e.g. the beheading of enemies of Islam.



Yeah, though she believes they didn't deserve to win because of their decadency and corruption.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The words appear to be her own, and the fact that she felt able to say that the Caliphate had lost its way to the extent that she doesn't think it deserves to win suggest you me that she's not overly fearful of reprisals. Which tends to suggest that she we truthful when she volunteered that she was unfazed by beheadings of enemies of Islam, rather than express remorse for her involvement with Daesh. *There's no reason to think she's anything other than an adherent to the IS ideology that initially attracted her to join.*


The bit in bold especially. The ideas that she was somehow innocent and didn't really know what IS were about when she ran off to join them or that she was somehow coerced to go against her will, neither of those ideas hold water. She was 15 when she ran off, not 5. She will have seen the beheadings, and her reaction to them was 'I want to go and marry one of those men and have his babies'. This isn't a crude caricature - that's exactly what she ran off to do. So she is an accessory to all the horrors inflicted on the people of Syria by the group she was with - an active supporter of their actions. 

The above doesn't mean she wasn't naive, nor that she didn't think this was a great adventure at first. Who wouldn't? Running off to a war zone to join the fight to build a new society, fantasies of her sons growing up to be important men (sons of the first fighters, no less - privilege upon privilege) in the brave new world. The reality she met was such appalling squalor that neither of her first children survived infancy, and I doubt she imagined that. But she was signed up to the cause, which is God's Cause, and no doubt started out with a firm belief that IS would prevail. If she is surrounded by the victims of IS now, she should count herself lucky if they don't slit her throat. If they let her live, they are acting with far more compassion than IS would ever have shown.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, though she believes they didn't deserve to win because of their decadency and corruption.


As opposed to their culture of religious fanaticism, mass rape, murder, and torture.


----------



## xenon (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> It's a lovely liberal sentiment, but, really, it's a cop out.  It *is* an either/or; there's limited resources (if only insofar as the order in which it's practically possible to help people).  If you had to decide to use them to help an unrepentant British neo-nazi or a blameless victim of fascism, which would you choose, and why?



 If you could press a magic button to rescue people from these terrible situations.  One at a time.  I don’t think I would get round to pressing it for her by the end of next week. Even if I worked 24 hours a day.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So much for understanding the different factors that led her there.



You don't know what they are. We don't actually know anything about the girl when she was 15, what her state of mind was like, her personality, what her family was like, her early childhood. There are 15 year olds who are sadistic, who are perverse, who are grandiose, who are cold and callous, there's nothing about being a 'child' that precludes any of that. All we know is the social and political context in a very general way, which may include vulnerability to grooming, but doesn't actually tell us a great deal.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> As opposed to their culture of religious fanaticism, mass rape, murder, and torture.



They lacked consistency and integrity on that score, clearly.

We're corrupt and decadent too, but also weak enough to consider having her back, so the calculus has changed.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> As opposed to their culture of religious fanaticism, mass rape, murder, and torture.



Yeah, she's cool with that.  She just wants decent healthcare for her child, not those poor children who just wanted to go to a pop concert in Manchester.  They deserved to die.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

When did it become anti-Muslim not to want to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who deliberately went to a Daesh stronghold to build the caliphate?
She comes from a part of east London that was remarkably resilient to jihadi ideology for years, given its relative homogeneity and deprivation. Despite the headbangers, who are as likely to be white or afro-Carribean as South Asian, it wasn't local lads who blew up Aldgate tube station. It's as if Bethnal Green's Mulsim population doesn't include anyone who remembers the war of independence from Pakistan and the war crimes committed against Bengalis in Allah's name. It's as if none of them identifies with the Sufism of that country, which would have quickly seen them in a shallow grave in Syria. It's as if nobody still chooses to attend the Brick Lane mosque because they have a different take on Islam from those at the Saudi-funded East London Mosque, never mind the Daesh headbangers. It's as if textile workers' unions, or anti-racist self-defence groups, or militant secular youth movements have nothing to do with the living memory of the specific community she grew up in. It's as if Asian Dub Foundation's blend of music and politics emerged from a vacuum.
If the left in Britain has any responsibility for Begum's choices, it has more to do with making alliances with conservative tendencies in these 'communities' after 9/11, instead of supporting more progressive elements.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> When did it become anti-Muslim not to want to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who deliberately went to a Daesh stronghold to build the caliphate?
> She comes from a part of east London that was remarkably resilient to jihadi ideology for years, given its relative homogeneity and deprivation. Despite the headbangers, who are as likely to be white or afro-Carribean as South Asian, it wasn't local lads who blew up Aldgate tube station. It's as if Muslims in Bethnal Green don't include anyone who remembers the war of independence from Pakistan and the war crimes committed against Bengalis in Allah's name. It's as if none of them identifies with the Sufism of that country, which would have quickly seen them in a shallow grave in Syria. It's as if nobody still chooses to attend the Brick Lane mosque because they have a different take on Islam from those at the Saudi-funded East London Mosque, never mind the Daesh headbangers. It's as if textile workers' unions, or anti-racist self-defence groups, or militant secular youth movements have nothing to do with the living memory of the specific community she grew up in. It's as if Asian Dub foundation's blend of music and politics emerged from a vacuum.
> If the left in Britain has any responsibility for Begum's choices, it has more to do with making alliances with conservative tendencies in these 'communities' after 9/11, instead of supporting more progressive elements.



The liberal left's buy-in to top-down, state-led multiculturalism requires a belief in homogeneity and 'community leaders', reflects some deep-seated orientalism, and often involves a craven abandonment of political principles.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> I was a whisker away from referring to Occam's razor, too.



A close shave for sure


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> It's a lovely liberal sentiment, but, really, it's a cop out.  In the current situation, it *is* an either/or; there's limited resources (if only insofar as the order in which it's practically possible to help people).  If you had to decide to use them to help an unrepentant British neo-nazi or a blameless victim of fascism, which would you choose, and why?
> 
> You have a dichotomy: be consistent and end in a moral absurdity; or, be inconsistent and reveal how your attitude to this case reeks of paternalism and orientalism.



In the current situation we're talking about a young pregnant British woman who wants to return to Britain. She should be allowed to return and helped to do so as far as is practical. The same would go for any British citizen regardless of gender or ethnicity or political orientation, although the pergnacy clearly makes the situation more urgent as would a serious health condition .

As far as I can gather she has no other nationality so there is no other state she could move to. There's no indication that she is being accused of any crime in the location she is currently located. If she were she should as far as practical be offered consular support. Wherever she is she has the right to a fair trial, again it is the British states duty to try to ensure this happens.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

I missed the bit where a British passport entitles the bearer, either legally or morally, to get airlifted out of every mess they find themselves in, innocently or not.

The inscription might read:
"Her Britannic Majesty's Secretary of State Requests and requires in the Name of Her Majesty all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance, and to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary."

But, I don't think this is meant to be read too literally these days.

I'm sure that if you're Ellen McArthur and get into a bit of bother in the South Atlantic, they might consider scrambling a rescue helicopter for the feel-good headlines, but that's a different matter.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> She should be allowed to return and helped to do so as far as is practical. The same would go for any British citizen regardless of gender or ethnicity or political orientation...



*Why* should she be helped given the opportunity cost of helping her in a situation of limited consular resources?  Are all British people equally worthy of help, and more worthy than all non-British people?

And how would you answer the question in my previous post?



> ... there's limited resources (if only insofar as the order in which it's practically possible to help people). If you had to decide to use them to help an unrepentant British neo-nazi or a blameless victim of fascism, which would you choose, and why?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

Still not sure why Begum is more deserving of being rescued than the hundreds of thousands of refugees


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Still not sure why Begum is more deserving of being rescued than the hundreds of thousands of refugees



Who through her support of IS enabled them to become refugees, those that weren't killed instead at least.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Still not sure why Begum is more deserving of being rescued than the hundreds of thousands of refugees


I doubt she's the only preganant woman in the camp either. Should priority be given to someone who has enabled the rape of others, over the victims, just because she's from Bethnal Green?


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

She may be a fascist supporting scumbag, but she’s our fascist supporting scumbag (so fuck you yazidi slaves eh?)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> In the current situation we're talking about a young pregnant British woman who wants to return to Britain. She should be allowed to return and helped to do so as far as is practical. The same would go for any British citizen regardless of gender or ethnicity or political orientation, although the pergnacy clearly makes the situation more urgent as would a serious health condition ..


While I broadly agree that she should be allowed back, and perhaps helped to come back, being a member of IS is rather more than a 'political orientation'. That is to understate the case and to do a disservice to the thousands of victims of these fuckers.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Still not sure why Begum is more deserving of being rescued than the hundreds of thousands of refugees



I imagine there are quite a few others who, like her, are entitled to consular support and discover that it doesn't amount to much when they find themselves in dire straits. No doubt, race and class play out in terms of who is deemed worthy of a bit of largesse. But generally the state doesn't bail Britains out when they get into sticky situations abroad:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-for-british-nationals-abroad-a-guide/support-for-british-nationals-abroad-summary 



> We cannot:
> [...]
> 
> 
> ...



Ironically enough, if she can find her way to a consulate in Turkey, she'll probably get brought back.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> In the current situation we're talking about a young pregnant British woman who wants to return to Britain. She should be allowed to return and helped to do so as far as is practical. The same would go for any British citizen regardless of gender or ethnicity or political orientation, although the pergnacy clearly makes the situation more urgent as would a serious health condition .
> 
> As far as I can gather she has no other nationality so there is no other state she could move to. There's no indication that she is being accused of any crime in the location she is currently located. If she were she should as far as practical be offered consular support. Wherever she is she has the right to a fair trial, again it is the British states duty to try to ensure this happens.



Its all moot anyway because you can't give UK consular service in a country where there are no UK consular services.  But you know this anyway.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

Who is stopping her from returning to Britain?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

Worth noting of course that she isn't actually a holder of a British passport - she used her sisters passport to travel to Syria, she doesn't have a British passport.

I look forward to our resident Heroes of the Working Class explaining to an underpaid D Grade official from the Passport Office who was expecting to knock off at 4 on a Friday in Liverpool and take her children to the Panto, why she should instead board an aircraft to Jordan, drive across the Syrian desert for several days in the company of D Sqn 22SAS, then hang about an IS infested refugee camp to provide consular support to someone who would happily see her throat cut.

Oh to be her TU rep....


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is stopping her from returning to Britain?



Our cuddly and lovable home secretary wants to have a go at stopping her:

_"My message is clear," Sajid Javid told the Times: "If you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return."
_
I reckon he's talking bollocks though because I don't see how he can beyond some completely illegal shenanigans.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Who is stopping her from returning to Britain?


Nobody. They're just not helping her, although Javid seems to be saying he could 'prevent her return' this morning. I'm not sure if he could legally do this if she just turned up at Heathrow though.


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Worth noting of course that she isn't actually a holder of a British passport - she used her sisters passport to travel to Syria, she doesn't have a British passport.
> 
> I look forward to our resident Heroes of the Working Class explaining to an underpaid D Grade official from the Passport Office who was expecting to knock off at 4 on a Friday in Liverpool and take her children to the Panto, why she should instead board an aircraft to Jordan, drive across the Syrian desert for several days in the company of D Sqn 22SAS, then hang about an IS infested refugee camp to provide consular support to someone who would happily see her throat cut.
> 
> Oh to be her TU rep....



No need, someone up thread volunteered Tower Hamlets child protection services to pop over to Syria and sort it out.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)




----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No need, someone up thread volunteered Tower Hamlets child protection services to pop over to Syria and sort it out.



Looks like the Employment Tribunals of Tower Hamlets will be booked solid for the next few years - _you want me to do fucking what?!_


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> While I broadly agree that she should be allowed back, and perhaps helped to come back, being a member of IS is rather more than a 'political orientation'. That is to understate the case and to do a disservice to the thousands of victims of these fuckers.



Is having supporter of ISIS worse than being a former member of the UVF?

Ulster Volunteer Force - Wikipedia

If so why? If not why should they be treated differently?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Is having supporter of ISIS worse than being a former member of the UVF?
> 
> Ulster Volunteer Force - Wikipedia
> 
> If so why? If not why should they be treated differently?


If a member of the UVF was stuck in a camp in a war zone without consular connections, having facilitated the rape and murder of thousands over the last 4 years, I'd say fuck them too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Our cuddly and lovable home secretary wants to have a go at stopping her:
> 
> _"My message is clear," Sajid Javid told the Times: "If you have supported terrorist organisations abroad I will not hesitate to prevent your return."
> _
> I reckon he's talking bollocks though because I don't see how he can beyond some completely illegal shenanigans.



Gavin 'Shit-Eating Moron' Williamson suggested simply murdering any IS returnees before they got here. But no, you cannot under international law deny one of your citizens the right to return home. Traditionally a Home Secretary would have known shit like that.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 15, 2019)

Bring her home. She is our problem one way or another, the drive to making people stateless by the Tories will be used increasingly and applied to different groups. If she is tried/de-radicalised etc she could be a useful weapon against further such converts, or she may spend most of her life in prison. Either way, the process should be carried out here.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Is having supporter of ISIS worse than being a former member of the UVF?
> 
> Ulster Volunteer Force - Wikipedia
> 
> If so why? If not why should they be treated differently?



Why should either of them be helped?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Is having supporter of ISIS worse than being a former member of the UVF?
> 
> Ulster Volunteer Force - Wikipedia
> 
> If so why? If not why should they be treated differently?



You're setting the bar quite low there. I mean how different are Isis from Combat 18? Why can't we just all try to get along?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Gavin 'Shit-Eating Moron' Williamson suggested simply murdering any IS returnees before they got here. But no, you cannot under international law deny one of your citizens the right to return home. Traditionally a Home Secretary would have known shit like that.



Savid Javid knows that too, but he's just keen on his big, shiny head appearing to look tough on the TV, so he's come out with a steaming pile of bollocks.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> Bring her home. She is our problem one way or another, the drive to making people stateless by the Tories will be used increasingly and applied to different groups. If she is tried/de-radicalised etc she could be a useful weapon against further such converts, or she may spend most of her life in prison. Either way, the process should be carried out here.



How do we bring her home? Why should she be priotised to be brought here over all those who are desperate?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> Bring her home....



Are you offering to go to Syria, and then put her up in your spare room - or are you one of those people who thinks that difficult and dangerous things should be done, but always by other people?


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Gavin 'Shit-Eating Moron' Williamson suggested simply murdering any IS returnees before they got here. But no, you cannot under international law deny one of your citizens the right to return home. Traditionally a Home Secretary would have known shit like that.



That's not strictly true; the SoS can deprive British citizens of that citizenship in certain circumstances.  Albeit I don't think he could in this case.


----------



## Riklet (Feb 15, 2019)

Maybe if she has to find her own way back, following the refugee routes that millions of others have followed - displaced partly by her/her husband/her comrades - it will give the little brat some time to reflect on the severed heads in the bins and what choices she would like to make in life from now on.

If she makes it back to Britain then I think she should be treated fairly and equally like any other person, given NHS treatment, good legal representation, whatever.  Quite another matter is spending millions getting her out of a Syrian refugee camp on a private flight and flown back for her baby's birth.

It seems awful to take any pleasure in her tragic situation and it's not one any of us would wish on any 19 year old, even if they have done awful things. But she is an adult and she has made her own choices.  It would be quite another matter if she had wanted to come back one week after after she had run away and had made it to the Turkish border or whatever.  But she didn't.... only now that the going has got tough in paradise has she shown any inclination to return.

And a grim reminder that she is by no means that unlucky compared to other ISIS brides.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

She can live with that Peter Fahy bloke who ran the obviously failed Prevent thing and yet now seems to want to mouth off about what should become of those people he failed to protect.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

Riklet said:


> It would be quite another matter if she had wanted to come back one week after after she had run away and had made it to the Turkish border or whatever.  But she didn't.... only now that the going has got tough in paradise has she shown any inclination to return.


She stuck it out for 4 fucking years!

When asked about IS she said:



> But she said she felt the IS "caliphate" was at an end.
> 
> "I don't have high hopes. They are just getting smaller and smaller," she said.



She doesn't have "high hopes" for the caliphate because they're being bombed to buggery.

Oh well, never mind.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2019)

If she comes home in April to find we’ve left the EU, she’s going to think the world’s gone plain barmy!


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

There is a wide gulf between supporting Conservative rhetoric about making people stateless and calling for every effort to be made to bring Begum back to this country. If the war on terror has demonstrated anything, it's the limited ability of the state to provide a legal-juridical solution to this sort of situation without taking an authoritarian turn with consequences for the rest of us. Meanwhile, the prison system doesn't have a great track record on rehabilitating offenders at the best of times. You might even suspect that this wasn't its main purpose. Initiatives like the Prevent programme also manage to be both heavy-handed and completely ineffective. That the Government doesn't want to bring the likes of her back for a show trial shows that they don't have a solution, so they have to fall back on looking tough through exclusion and Nato airstrikes.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She stuck it out for 4 fucking years!
> 
> When asked about IS she said:
> 
> ...



Yes, but she is a victim of at least statutory rape, possibly worse, has lived under bombardment and lost two babies. I’d suggest PTSD or even complex PTSD a high possibility. She’s also living in a refugee camp with devotees and may feel a tad under duress. I’d therefore be inclined to put little weight on comments attributed to her, for good or bad.

What’s important is the intelligence available about what she did and where she fitted in. High ranking like Samantha Lewthwaite or baby-machine? Obviously we should protect ourselves, but it’s reasonable to rationally assess her threat. She’s still only 19 and we don’t generally give up on individuals for their crimes at 15. She could become anything within the next ten years away from the illusions of the caliphate.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, but she is a victim of at least statutory rape...



What makes you think that?  What was the age of consent there at that time?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> That's not strictly true; the SoS can deprive British citizens of that citizenship in certain circumstances.  Albeit I don't think he could in this case.



Only if she has another nationality. You can't just take a person who is wholly a British citizen and make them stateless.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, but she is a victim of at least statutory rape, possibly worse, has lived under bombardment and lost two babies. I’d suggest PTSD or even complex PTSD a high possibility. She’s also living in a refugee camp with devotees and may feel a tad under duress. I’d therefore be inclined to put little weight on comments attributed to her, for good or bad.
> 
> What’s important is the intelligence available about what she did and where she fitted in. High ranking like Samantha Lewthwaite or baby-machine? Obviously we should protect ourselves, but it’s reasonable to rationally assess her threat. She’s still only 19 and we don’t generally give up on individuals for their crimes at 15. She could become anything within the next ten years away from the illusions of the caliphate.



Statutory rape is sex with a minor under the age of 13 in the UK. Not having sex with a 15 year old in Syria.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, but she is a victim of at least statutory rape, possibly worse, has lived under bombardment and lost two babies. I’d suggest PTSD or even complex PTSD a high possibility. She’s also living in a refugee camp with devotees and may feel a tad under duress. I’d therefore be inclined to put little weight on comments attributed to her, for good or bad.
> 
> What’s important is the intelligence available about what she did and where she fitted in. High ranking like Samantha Lewthwaite or baby-machine? Obviously we should protect ourselves, but it’s reasonable to rationally assess her threat. She’s still only 19 and we don’t generally give up on individuals for their crimes at 15. She could become anything within the next ten years away from the illusions of the caliphate.



Again, we don't know anything about her state of mind, then or now. We can't guess with the little information we have, certainly not enough to make diagnoses.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Only if she has another nationality. You can't just take a person who is wholly a British citizen and make them stateless.



Yes, but that's not what he originally said.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Worth noting of course that she isn't actually a holder of a British passport - she used her sisters passport to travel to Syria, she doesn't have a British passport.
> 
> I look forward to our resident Heroes of the Working Class explaining to an underpaid D Grade official from the Passport Office who was expecting to knock off at 4 on a Friday in Liverpool and take her children to the Panto, why she should instead board an aircraft to Jordan, drive across the Syrian desert for several days in the company of D Sqn 22SAS, then hang about an IS infested refugee camp to provide consular support to someone who would happily see her throat cut.
> 
> Oh to be her TU rep....


It would be good if they sent Martina from the job centre to do her application.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> What’s important is the intelligence available about what she did and where she fitted in. High ranking like Samantha Lewthwaite or baby-machine? Obviously we should protect ourselves, but it’s reasonable to rationally assess her threat. She’s still only 19 and we don’t generally give up on individuals for their crimes at 15. She could become anything within the next ten years away from the illusions of the caliphate.


As far as her value to the security services is concerned, I doubt she has any. If she has then by all means go and get her but they'd probably have done that by now if they thought it worthwhile. With regards to what she may or may not become, I couldn't care less if she were demonstrably the next Florence Nightingale. She's one person in a camp of 36,000. Many of the others are the victims of the regime she went out to support. I'd put every single one of them ahead of her when doling out the sympathy.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> What makes you think that?  What was the age of consent there at that time?


14 in Syria.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Again, we don't know anything about her state of mind, then or now. We can't guess with the little information we have, certainly not enough to make diagnoses.



Yes, that’s why I am saying we shouldn’t put much store in what she says. She could be largely damaged victim or determined jihadist.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> What makes you think that?  What was the age of consent there at that time?





Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Statutory rape is sex with a minor under the age of 13 in the UK. Not having sex with a 15 year old in Syria.



I stand corrected.


----------



## Mr Moose (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> As far as her value to the security services is concerned, I doubt she has any. If she has then by all means go and get her but they'd probably have done that by now if they thought it worthwhile. With regards to what she may or may not become, I couldn't care less if she were demonstrably the next Florence Nightingale. She's one person in a camp of 36,000. Many of the others are the victims of the regime she went out to support. I'd put every single one of them ahead of her when doling out the sympathy.



I probably didn’t express that well. I meant what is known about her, rather than what she can tell us. There will be lots of people telling their stories and we would get some kind of idea of how she fitted in.


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> It would be good if they sent Martina from the job centre to do her application.




 Rather this one... "Flight back to the UK? Computer says no."


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Statutory rape is sex with a minor under the age of 13 in the UK. Not having sex with a 15 year old in Syria.



I thought “statutory rape” was an American term.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> I meant what is known about her, rather than what she can tell us. There will be lots of people telling their stories and we would get some kind of idea of how she fitted in.


Not bothered. Even less so if repatriating her involves putting others in harm's way.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Not bothered. Even less so if repatriating her involves putting others in harm's way.



It shouldn’t put others in harm’s way, because they should be assessing whether she is any threat before letting her out of prison.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> I thought “statutory rape” was an American term.


Yeah. In the UK sex with a kid under 13 is rape, regardless of consent. Sex with a 13-16 year old is "sexual activity with a child".


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> It shouldn’t put others in harm’s way, because they should be assessing whether she is any threat before letting her out of prison.



They'd have to go to Syria and sort it out before that happened. Going there is not quite like popping round the corner to the shops.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

8ball said:


> It shouldn’t put others in harm’s way, because they should be assessing whether she is any threat before letting her out of prison.



I look forward to reading the nine million page Risk Assessment for sending a mental health assessment team to an IS infested refugee camp in northern Syria....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, but she is a victim of at least statutory rape, possibly worse, has lived under bombardment and lost two babies. I’d suggest PTSD or even complex PTSD a high possibility. She’s also living in a refugee camp with devotees and may feel a tad under duress. I’d therefore be inclined to put little weight on comments attributed to her, for good or bad..


Let's not lay it on too thick that she's a victim here. All the shit she's been through, she chose it, in a way that many others in that camp did not choose it, and they will quite rightly despise her for that.

If you're going down the 'she's a victim' route, it's more akin to the compassion shown to convicted murderers - in the phrase of the former head of psychiatry at Broadmoor, 'they are survivors of a catastrophe, and that catastrophe was them themselves'.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

Mr Moose said:


> Yes, that’s why I am saying we shouldn’t put much store in what she says. She could be largely damaged victim or determined jihadist.



She could be both, but neither her status as victim and/or victimiser, or her legal status as child or adult tells us very much about her.


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 15, 2019)

This is a tough one  and my opinion is worth little but that said, I'd be inclined to look at the fact she wants her baby born under the NHS auspices as a positive sign in that it shows a slight change in attitudes re the West. You can't expect to wholeheartedly renounce Daesh straight away, certainly not whilst she's in a refugee camp. She's unsafe there, she mugs off Daesh, she might as well sign her own death warrant. She's certainly made herself unsafe as it is,with this interview.

Also, no one is beyond redemption. Not even someone that's joined an evil organisation like the aforementioned Daesh. That's not to say she shouldn't face scrutiny from the authorities here, perhaps criminal charges if they can be brought. 



At the same time, I'd be inclined to offer sanctuary to some of the victims of Daesh, like the Yazidi slaves for example, assuming they were willing to come here.


----------



## A380 (Feb 15, 2019)

Perhaps those that feel she should be brought home ( rather than waiting to see if she makes it on her own) could have a on line whip round- perhaps using Kickstarter. I’m sure there are many PMCs that would have the capability and capacity. I guess with the right contacts a six person team probably all or all but one locals and a couple of soft skinned vehicles could do the planning and activation phases in say 10 days. $400 a day x 10 x six people is only $24000 plus the cars, fuel, supplies , facilitation fees and the like. You could probably have her back at Heathrow for under £30k. 

I won’t be contributing by the way...


----------



## editor (Feb 15, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> This is a tough one  and my opinion is worth little but that said, I'd be inclined to look at the fact she wants her baby born under the NHS auspices as a positive sign in that it shows a slight change in attitudes re the West.


I'm not sure that is true at all.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

I wonder how the split between people who are convinced that we can't know her mind, or should give her the benefit of the doubt, and those who feel her words should probably be taken at face value maps onto those who encountered Isis on social media at the time and those who didn't? There was a time period shortly before she went out there when Isis propoganda confronted you if you followed events in Syria on Twitter. This largely consisted of snuff movies with the production standards of a high-end music video.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> ... I'd be inclined to look at the fact she wants her baby born under the NHS auspices as a positive sign in that it shows a slight change in attitudes re the West.


I'd be inclined to think it shows that she's not _entirely_ fucking stupid and realises that she'd be far more comfortable having the baby in a London hospital than a Syrian refugee camp.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> This is a tough one  and my opinion is worth little...



Your opinion is worth as much as anyone else's here.


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 15, 2019)

editor said:


> I'm not sure that is true at all.



Yeah, I was just trying to see a positive. 

Sorry, I'll polish my cynicism cloak for next time.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Your opinion is worth as much as anyone else's here.


i think we may rely on tonysingh's valuation of his opinion


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Are you offering to go to Syria, and then put her up in your spare room - or are you one of those people who thinks that difficult and dangerous things should be done, but always by other people?



Are you one of those people who thinks everyone has a spare room?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i think we may rely on tonysingh's valuation of his opinion



It was more a valuation of everyone else's opinion, mine included.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> How do we bring her home? Why should she be priotised to be brought here over all those who are desperate?



She is British.

She seems to be in a camp with other foreign IS brides under supervision - someone posted a wee video upthread.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> Are you one of those people who thinks everyone has a spare room?



Top and tail?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 15, 2019)

I've just read, but lost the link, she can be refused entry until she's agreed to a bunch of stuff, then could face legal action upon return.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> This is a tough one  and my opinion is worth little but that said, I'd be inclined to look at the fact she wants her baby born under the NHS auspices as a positive sign in that it shows a slight change in attitudes re the West. You can't expect to wholeheartedly renounce Daesh straight away, certainly not whilst she's in a refugee camp. She's unsafe there, she mugs off Daesh, she might as well sign her own death warrant. She's certainly made herself unsafe as it is,with this interview.
> 
> Also, no one is beyond redemption. Not even someone that's joined an evil organisation like the aforementioned Daesh. That's not to say she shouldn't face scrutiny from the authorities here, perhaps criminal charges if they can be brought.
> 
> ...


while that shows a nice spirit, and a touching belief in the innate goodness of this unfortunate woman, where she has been offered the opportunity to express contrition she has described the most appalling things in the most matter of fact way with no expression of wrong choices made or of remorse or regret for aiding and abetting the nefandous islamic state: which leaves me in no doubt that she's at best a deeply damaged individual. if she's a victim of daesh, she's been a most willing one. however, i applaud and second your suggestion for sanctuary for the devotees of melek taus


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2019)

Isis woman Tareena Shakila released from British jail


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I've just read, but lost the link, she can be refused entry until she's agreed to a bunch of stuff, then could face legal action upon return.



How can they actually refuse entry though if she just pitches up at Heathrow?  Just leave her in limbo between the gates and security?  It could end up as a bitter sweet comedy, someone should make a film like that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> How can they actually refuse entry though if she just pitches up at Heathrow?  Just leave her in limbo between the gates and security?  It could end up as a bitter sweet comedy, someone should make a film like that.


people have found themselves trapped at moscow's sheremetyevo airport unable to leave the building or board another flight, and it is no laughing matter see eg A surprising number of people are getting trapped for months on end in Moscow’s busiest airport


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> people have found themselves trapped at moscow's sheremetyevo airport unable to leave the building or board another flight, and it is no laughing matter



Not even bitter sweet?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> They'd have to go to Syria and sort it out before that happened. Going there is not quite like popping round the corner to the shops.





kebabking said:


> I look forward to reading the nine million page Risk Assessment for sending a mental health assessment team to an IS infested refugee camp in northern Syria....



Fair point, I was just talking about the risks if she made it back herself - I misread what you meant by "repatriating".


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Not even bitter sweet?


not even bitter sweet


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I wonder how the split between people who are convinced that we can't know her mind, or should give her the benefit of the doubt, and those who feel her words should probably be taken at face value maps onto those who encountered Isis on social media at the time and those who didn't? There was a time period shortly before she went out there when Isis propoganda confronted you if you followed events in Syria on Twitter. This largely consisted of snuff movies with the production standards of a high-end music videos.



My point is that you can't say very much about people's state of mind based on descriptions of someone's actions. I said that her age doesn't protect her from being perverse or sadistic, it doesn't. I'm saying we need to look at the evidence, but that the evidence for how she was then and how she is now is limited, although not non-existent. I don't think it helps our understanding to be be saying she was groomed therefore she must have been like this, or, she has endured 4 years of this, therefore she must feel like this, that says more about how we want things to be rather than how they actually are.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

Red Cat, thanks for the response. Out of curiosity, did you get sucked down the rabbit hole of online Isis propagaganda just over four years ago?

ETA: perhaps shouldn't be addressed to you any more than the people diagnosing PTSD or whatever.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> I've just read, but lost the link, she can be refused entry until she's agreed to a bunch of stuff, then could face legal action upon return.



The government's view would be that they simply don't want her back. As soon as she either walks on UK soil, or comes under the protection of an SIS/SF team in Syria, she becomes their problem, and that she has rights and they have obligations - and they don't end when a psychiatrist at Belmarsh signs her off as being an incurable fanatic.

In legal terms she's like cat shit trodden into your carpet: it's a lot easier if the problem doesn't arise and is 'solved' outside of your jurisdiction. Bluntly, that means dead from some disease that's rife in refugee camps, or shot by locals looking for revenge, which is also rife in the refugee camps of North East Syria.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Red Cat, thanks for the response. Out of curiosity, did you get sucked down the rabbit hole of online Isis propagaganda just over four years ago?



I'm sure she's extremely disturbed but we don't know more than that. Therefore we don't know in exactly what way she was vulnerable to being sucked down a rabbit hole.

Or maybe you're asking me something else. It's not clear. Maybe I'm not being clear.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I wonder how the split between people who are convinced that we can't know her mind, or should give her the benefit of the doubt, and those who feel her words should probably be taken at face value maps onto those who encountered Isis on social media at the time and those who didn't? There was a time period shortly before she went out there when Isis propoganda confronted you if you followed events in Syria on Twitter. This largely consisted of snuff movies with the production standards of a high-end music video.


My views are certainly coloured by the first-hand accounts of life under IS that I've read. My sympathy evaporates very quickly for anyone who turned up there and wasn't scheming to get back out within weeks. 

In both this case and the case of the woman just released from prison, their main concerns appear to be their own welfare. Shakila mostly talks about how she didn't like the way she was treated. Women treated like shit by Islamic State? Whodathunk? Similarly, in this case, it is only after her own life has totally fucked up that she has sought help to return. I think they are 'our problem' and we should not agree with the approach of the likes of Javid, but I have precious little sympathy for either of these women. They at the very least condoned the killing of 'non-believers'. They can go fuck themselves on most levels, regardless of the unhappiness they might have felt that led to them going there or the unhappiness they felt while there. Fuck you for making that choice.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I'm sure she's extremely disturbed but we don't know more than that. Therefore we don't know in exactly what way she was vulnerable to being sucked down a rabbit hole.
> 
> Or maybe you're asking me something else. It's not clear. Maybe I'm not being clear.



My initial comment was probably a bit misdirected towards you. It's more the people who are trying to speculate about what may have driven her towards Daesh, rather than the content of what she was clearly drawn towards, that I'm taking issue with.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> My initial comment was probably a bit misdirected towards you. It's more the people who are trying to speculate about what may have driven her towards Daesh, rather than the content of what she was clearly drawn towards, that I'm taking issue with.



I don't like the speculation that describes her actions in relation to some kind of deprivation or trauma in lieu of acknowledging that a 15 year old girl might be capable of extremely destructive states of mind. And I was also trying to say that it's not necessarily easy to assess someone's state of mind based on knowledge of their external circumstances, states of mind are complex, and we don't know much about her. 

But I wasn't suggesting she should be given the benefit of the doubt at all.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 15, 2019)

Tbh I think a lot of people on this thread have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager, while afaik none of us have any knowledge whatsoever about how being inducted into a death cult aged 15 and not emerging for four years can affect a person.

I'm not saying she should be absolved of guilt or trusted, but this was a child sucked in by a vast and insanely clever network of professionals exploiting her youth and faith, not a hardened veteran.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

I joined the SWP when I was 13 (stayed for 6 years). 

Teenagers are fucking daft


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Tbh I think a lot of people on this thread have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager, while afaik none of us have any knowledge whatsoever about how being inducted into a death cult aged 15 and not emerging for four years can affect a person.
> 
> I'm not saying she should be absolved of guilt or trusted, but this was a child sucked in by a vast and insanely clever network of professionals exploiting her youth and faith, not a hardened veteran.



Yes but its not about who she was then its about who she is now.  No matter how that situation came about she is what she is now, and on the face of it is a cold an utterly unrepentant adult who wishes it was still the good old days when she had a nice house and slaves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Tbh I think a lot of people on this thread have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager, while afaik none of us have any knowledge whatsoever about how being inducted into a death cult aged 15 and not emerging for four years can affect a person.
> 
> I'm not saying she should be absolved of guilt or trusted, but this was a child sucked in by a vast and insanely clever network of professionals exploiting her youth and faith, not a hardened veteran.


She was exploited, no doubt. One of the reasons I dislike the term 'brainwashing', which is often bandied about and has been in the media in this case by people who should know better, is that it implies a passive process of conversion. Here you also use the passive voice to describe her induction. But radicalisation isn't a passive process, particularly in the case of people growing up in urban Britain, where there are a multitude of voices to potentially listen to. So this was a child, or young adult, or just young person, who was led down a path she wanted to go down. Mitigating circumstances like those you might find for child soldiers in Uganda don't really apply here, and that bit - her agency - can't and shouldn't be ignored, whatever else emerges about how she ended up where she is. If she comes back here, she will have to face the consequences for her decision aged 15 and her actions in the four years since that decision. That will have to involve some kind of a transition period, which will likely need to happen in prison. And I'm pretty hard-nosed about that bit - she joined IS ffs, she _deserves_ a spell in prison, we owe it to her victims not to let her off. She is an accomplice to mass-murder.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> I joined the SWP when I was 13 (stayed for 6 years).



You deserve to swap places with her.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> You deserve to swap places with her.



The shame is sufficient punishment for me


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And I'm pretty hard-nosed about that bit - she joined IS ffs, she _deserves_ a spell in prison, we owe it to her victims not to let her off. She is an accomplice to mass-murder.



Do you draw the same line with returning war criminals wearing UK uniforms?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Do you draw the same line with returning war criminals wearing UK uniforms?


I have consistently opposed British military action for decades, and the real war criminals in this country don't wear uniforms - they wear smart politician suits. But drawing an equivalence between British military action and IS? Have a look around for accounts of life under IS rule. And the misdeeds of the British state don't leave the rest of us with nothing to say about the likes of returning IS people and what needs to be done about them, for our sake more than for theirs. Do you think it's fine if she just comes back and is left to get on with things? Would that sit well with you? Would that be the right thing to do?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But drawing an equivalence between British military action and IS?



It's generally accepted that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was a key factor in the creation of ISIS. If it weren't for our heroic veterans and all that heroism that they did out there, this young woman would have probably just finished school and got a job at TK Maxx or something. So while I respect your focus on the people ultimately responsible for bad things, in this case the category of 'responsible parties' includes a large number of people who got a parade through Wooton fucking Bassett when they got home.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> It's generally accepted that the US/UK invasion of Iraq was a key factor in the creation of ISIS. If it weren't for our heroic veterans and all that heroism that they did out there, this young woman would have probably just finished school and got a job at TK Maxx or something. So while I respect your focus on the people ultimately responsible for bad things, in this case the category of 'responsible parties' includes a large number of people who got a parade through Wooton fucking Bassett when they got home.


So can you answer my question? that's the problem with whatabouttery, however much the point might be valid, it doesn't tell you much about what you should do.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So can you answer my question? that's the problem with whatabouttery, however much the point might be valid, it doesn't tell you much about what you should do.



Throw out all the squaddies to make room for refugees. Sorry I thought that was implied.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> You deserve to swap places with her.


Who’s going to get him pregnant?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Throw out all the squaddies to make room for refugees. Sorry I thought that was implied.


Don’t be a plank, Frank.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Throw out all the squaddies to make room for refugees. Sorry I thought that was implied.


And Shamima Begum?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And Shamima Begum?



I guess she's a refugee herself now.  Maybe she could claim asylum somewhere?  Where are IS popular?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I guess she's a refugee herself now.  Maybe she could claim asylum somewhere?  Where are IS popular?



Frank's house? At least he won't subject them to a week at Centre Parcs...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Frank's house?


That would come under “cruel or unusual punishment”.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And Shamima Begum?



Well the policy on this has got to be coherent and universal. If you're letting people come home after creating ISIS as adults but not after joining it as children, that's incoherent.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Who’s going to get him pregnant?



Where’s this going?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well the policy on this has got to be coherent and universal. If you're letting people come home after creating ISIS as adults but not after joining it as children, that's incoherent.


Ok so you kick out the squaddies. You haven't said where to, by the way. Where do you kick them out to? Many of them are on the streets already, so maybe just add the rest to the legion of homeless and abandoned ex-squaddies that are the shame of this country. Then what?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok so you kick out the squaddies. You haven't said where to, by the way.



I hear Iraq is lovely since they went over there and fixed it.

I don't really think we should kick all the squaddies out. I just think if we're going to support survivors of war then we're only going to prolong the kind of beef that starts wars in the first place if we pick and choose which survivors are worthy of help. 

I don't think squaddies should be on the streets, but nor do I think people should be willing to kill on behalf of a state that leaves anyone at all out on the streets. This is all interrelated.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 15, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Oh come on. Not every young mum, not every Muslim, not every person who has been to a Muslim country or Syria is a terrorist


Yews, but people who are young muslim mums who have deliberately gone and joined Daeesh are a lot more likely to be terrorists than a random cross-sample of young muslim mums who haven't done that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I hear Iraq is lovely since they went over there and fixed it.


As I said, the problem with whatabouttery is that it doesn't much help in deciding what's best to do.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok so you kick out the squaddies. You haven't said where to, by the way. Where do you kick them out to?



About here?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok so you kick out the squaddies. You haven't said where to, by the way. Where do you kick them out to? Many of them are on the streets already, so maybe just add the rest to the legion of homeless and abandoned ex-squaddies that are the shame of this country. Then what?


Why are you humouring this tit?


----------



## two sheds (Feb 15, 2019)

She returns to UK presumably she'd be tried as member of terrorist organization let the courts sort it out?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Tbh I think a lot of people on this thread have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager, while afaik none of us have any knowledge whatsoever about how being inducted into a death cult aged 15 and not emerging for four years can affect a person.
> 
> I'm not saying she should be absolved of guilt or trusted, but this was a child sucked in by a vast and insanely clever network of professionals exploiting her youth and faith, not a hardened veteran.



It does seem like you're missing out a part of the picture, which is the girl herself, and filling in gaps because it's too awful to imagine that a young person might have had some agency in this. We don't know how disturbed or otherwise psychologically vulnerable this girl was, what we do know is something of her actions, what she was exposed to before going, what she sought out, and a short interview in admittedly difficult circumstances. I'm not sure it helps us to understand what may have happened to call it _youth and faith_.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 15, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Tbh I think a lot of people on this thread have forgotten what it's like to be a teenager, while afaik none of us have any knowledge whatsoever about how being inducted into a death cult aged 15 and not emerging for four years can affect a person.
> 
> I'm not saying she should be absolved of guilt or trusted, but this was a child sucked in by a vast and insanely clever network of professionals exploiting her youth and faith, not a hardened veteran.


I think Saul Goodman used the first line in his first defence speech in Better Call Saul.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 15, 2019)

we should immedialty send williamson javid and boris Johnson to go rescue her purely for the lols they'd be fine anyone who wants to do serious harm to the UK
 unfortunately isn't going to harm a hair on any of them


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

two sheds said:


> She returns to UK presumably she'd be tried as member of terrorist organization let the courts sort it out?



Whilst you're right this is not the kind of attitude that gets us to 25 pages.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 15, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> It does seem like you're missing out a part of the picture, which is the girl herself, and filling in gaps because it's too awful to imagine that a young person might have had some agency in this. We don't know how disturbed or otherwise psychologically vulnerable this girl was, what we do know is something of her actions, what she was exposed to before going, what she sought out, and a short interview in admittedly difficult circumstances. I'm not sure it helps us to understand what may have happened to call it _youth and faith_.



I'm not "denying her agency", I specifically said in the second line that she's not absolved of guilt. And yes, the whole point is we know fuck all about her psychology either before, during or after, other than that she was 15 and religious at the start and is talking tough at the finish. Everything else is making assertions based on little more than what a 19-year-old refugee trapped in a camp (which may or may not also have a number of people in it who wouldn't take kindly to say, a full-on recanting of prior affiliations) has to say about her experiences.

That said, the inability to even imagine that a teenager might have their head turned by a well-executed campaign of propaganda aimed at exploiting alienation, sympathy with repressed Muslim peoples, existing faith etc I find totally weird. Even Scientologists have a decent hit rate with cult recruitment and they're literally selling a space emperor dropping souls into a volcano via a little buzzing gauge. Is this not about 1,000 times more likely than the idea that a 15-year-old independently came to the conclusion that Murder and Torture Is Fine Because The Infidel Must Die from an average teenage daily news diet of I dunno, Newsround and Instagram?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Whilst you're right this is not the kind of attitude that gets us to 25 pages.



Speaking of which: 

MI6 chief: Britons who joined Isis cannot be stopped from returning

In case anyone still thought this was a debate.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Speaking of which:
> 
> MI6 chief: Britons who joined Isis cannot be stopped from returning
> 
> In case anyone still thought this was a debate.



Someone needs to tell Javid and that weird defence secretary fella who is probably having wank fantasies over targeted drone strikes in a refugee camp as we speak.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Speaking of which:
> 
> MI6 chief: Britons who joined Isis cannot be stopped from returning
> 
> In case anyone still thought this was a debate.


I don’t think anyone has posted anything to the contrary in this thread.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> She was a committed and enthusiastic supporter of a fascist regime which committed mass rape, torture and murder on misogynistic, racist, homophobic and religiously motivated grounds.  She is entirely unrepentant about that; she only wants out now because the writing's on the wall, and to exploit the healthcare provided by a society that's her sworn enemy. She was well over the age of criminal responsibility when she left, and stayed there into adulthood.  Frankly, I couldn't care less if she dies in a Syrian refugee camp.





eoin_k said:


> Shamima Begum was groomed. She deserves the chance of rehabilitation | Michael Segalov
> 
> It's one thing to say that the school failed in their duty of care, or that it took far too long for the likes of Twitter to work out what role social media was playing in Daesh's recruitment strategy, but it doesn't follow that framing all of this in terms of grooming and brainwashing necessarily makes sense either.
> 
> ...



Not sure if it's been mentioned but I'm just wondering whether anyone is aware of the (government run) 'Prevent' programme - where the training is supposed to extend to every member of staff, in every school - and other orgs beyond, as it happens.

Timing-wise, it may have been totally due to this case, actually  - but it _absolutely_ compares radicalisation to (for eg) sexual abuse, in terms of the potential for grooming.

Within that, the process of making travel arrangements is also never (quite fucking obviously, imo - fucking hell, have you ever listened to teenagers trying to make even basic arrangments) one that will have fallen to the _child _(and that's written into the training, afair, too).

Seems fairly clear that these girls _were_ recognised as being at risk by their school, too - and that it was a significant failing of the school to send a letter back to the parents, warning of their concerns, _with_ the girls (cos that'd be pretty fucking idiotic even if they'd just pissed off to the park for the afternoon) - but whatever, how far do you dismiss the impact of all of that when shit _has_ happened now?

Prob stands quite a lot on believing, or not, that they were groomed in the first place, I suppose.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Well the policy on this has got to be coherent and universal. If you're letting people come home after creating ISIS as adults but not after joining it as children, that's incoherent.



No one is stopping her coming home, if she does, there's nowt we can do but let her in, investigate, possibly prosecute and jail her, and take her child into care.

There's no requirement for us to 'rescue' her & bring her home, so your comparison is frankly nonsense, Frank, which is hardly surprising coming from you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned but I'm just wondering whether anyone is aware of the (government run) 'Prevent' programme - where the training is supposed to extend to every member of staff, in every school - and other orgs beyond, as it happens.
> 
> Timing-wise, it may have been totally due to this case, actually  - but it _absolutely_ compares radicalisation to (for eg) sexual abuse, in terms of the potential for grooming.
> 
> ...


It's possible for both things to be true - that they were 'groomed' (and let down generally by the system) _and_ that they actively sought it out. For me, one test of that way of thinking would be to consider a boy aged 15 who ran off to Syria to fight for IS, marrying one of these girls in due course perhaps, but carrying out the killing and torturing and enslaving. What role would the grooming play in considering his case? I don't see much difference morally between the two, tbh - both are taking on jobs in pursuit of the same cause. 

Thing is, most people who do terrible things are themselves badly damaged in one way or another.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's possible for both things to be true - that they were 'groomed' (and let down generally by the system) _and_ that they actively sought it out. For me, one test of that way of thinking would be to consider a boy aged 15 who ran off to Syria to fight for IS, marrying one of these girls in due course perhaps, but carrying out the killing and torturing and enslaving. What role would the grooming play in considering his case? I don't see much difference morally between the two, tbh - both are taking on jobs in pursuit of the same cause.
> 
> Thing is, most people who do terrible things are themselves badly damaged in one way or another.



I'm really not sure exactly _what_ I feel about this, tbh - it's just pretty fucking horrific all round.
I thought it was right to correct the notion that radicalised children have _not_ been groomed in the first place, though.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm not "denying her agency", I specifically said in the second line that she's not absolved of guilt. And yes, the whole point is we know fuck all about her psychology either before, during or after, other than that she was 15 and religious at the start and is talking tough at the finish. Everything else is making assertions based on little more than what a 19-year-old refugee trapped in a camp (which may or may not also have a number of people in it who wouldn't take kindly to say, a full-on recanting of prior affiliations) has to say about her experiences.



I actually don't like talking about agency in these circumstances because obviously agency is limited and I didn't want to say responsibility either or choice for the same reason, but I didn't know how else to talk about the part that she may have played in all this, otherwise it comes over as her just being done to, rather than a process she was part of. 

Anyway, as we have both said, we don't know very much about her.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2019)

I'd still wonder what might have happened to that 15 year boy if things had gone differently, too, fwiw.
Him and then all the _other_ people he went on to harm and/or kill.
I'm also NOT laying fault at the school's door - I didn't mean it to sound like that.
It just makes me despair, really.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> A veritable jihadist factory.
> I hope this child gets taken into care.




gentlegreen is the most blatant slut-shamer on this thread, but I wonder how much misogyny plays a part in the reaction to this story. We live in a society which still harbours a degree of contempt for young women who get pregnant. Does disgust with a 15 year old who runs away with the aim of marrying an getting pregnant affect reactions either here or in broader society? The Maxine Carr hysteria was not that long ago, and showed  that as a society we still judge women by different standards to men

I also wonder why reactions to this case are so different from that to the case of the British Citizens and British residents who were detained in Guantanamo. They were, after all, captured by the US in Afghanistan post-invasion. For all its faults Guantanamo was probably safer than a Syrian refugee camp, but there was a strong campaign to get them repatriated, supported by posters here. Perhaps that was more related to hatred of Bush.

Force feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo

Guantanamo

Frankie Boyle funds Guantanamo prisoner's suit against MI6 for defamation


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'd still wonder what might have happened to that 15 year boy if things had gone differently, too, fwiw.
> Him and then all the _other_ people he went on to harm and/or kill.
> I'm also NOT laying fault at the school's door - I didn't mean it to sound like that.
> It just makes me despair, really.



Keeping in mind the things we don't want to imagine is why we have loads of CP training isn't it? So we keep our eyes open and act even when we don't want to believe what we see. It's really hard to see what's in front of us sometimes, it really is, which is why there's so much emphasis on team working in schools and services, and it's why we're supposed to report everything and not make assumptions ourselves. This stuff is so hard.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> gentlegreen is the most blatant slut-shamer on this thread, but I wonder how much misogyny plays a part in the reaction to this story. We live in a society which still harbours a degree of contempt for young women who get pregnant. Does disgust with a 15 year old who runs away with the aim of marrying an getting pregnant affect reactions either here or in broader society? The Maxine Carr hysteria was not that long ago, and showed  that as a society we still judge women by different standards to men
> 
> I also wonder why reactions to this case are so different from that to the case of the British Citizens and British residents who were detained in Guantanamo. They were, after all, captured by the US in Afghanistan post-invasion. For all its faults Guantanamo was probably safer than a Syrian refugee camp, but there was a strong campaign to get them repatriated, supported by posters here. Perhaps that was more related to hatred of Bush.
> 
> ...



The were beig held captive without trial by a so-called ally. Her situation is quite different.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> I'd still wonder what might have happened to that 15 year boy if things had gone differently, too, fwiw.
> Him and then all the _other_ people he went on to harm and/or kill.
> I'm also NOT laying fault at the school's door - I didn't mean it to sound like that.
> It just makes me despair, really.


So would I. Apols it was a bit of a cheap point really, not really aimed at you, prompted more by wondering whether the Guardian would be publishing articles about him.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The were beig held captive without trial by a so-called ally. Her situation is quite different.



Yes, much more precarious


----------



## A380 (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> gentlegreen is the most blatant slut-shamer on this thread, but I wonder how much misogyny plays a part in the reaction to this story. We live in a society which still harbours a degree of contempt for young women who get pregnant. Does disgust with a 15 year old who runs away with the aim of marrying an getting pregnant affect reactions either here or in broader society? The Maxine Carr hysteria was not that long ago, and showed  that as a society we still judge women by different standards to men
> 
> I also wonder why reactions to this case are so different from that to the case of the British Citizens and British residents who were detained in Guantanamo. They were, after all, captured by the US in Afghanistan post-invasion. For all its faults Guantanamo was probably safer than a Syrian refugee camp, but there was a strong campaign to get them repatriated, supported by posters here. Perhaps that was more related to hatred of Bush.
> 
> ...


It’s the complete polar opposite. The line most people are taking is that she had as much agency, choice and mis placed courage and grip as any male fighter. I think you are deliberately misunderstanding though, for the effect like.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 15, 2019)

I fully expect she will be allowed into the UK, investigated and probably charged with being a member of a proscribed terrorist organisation.
If she is jailed the baby will be taken into care. Her only salvation is if she tells the security services everything she knows, though that would be a self-imposed death sentence.
The law must be seen to be being upheld above all else, as far as the State is concerned.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> gentlegreen is the most blatant slut-shamer on this thread, but I wonder how much misogyny plays a part in the reaction to this story. We live in a society which still harbours a degree of contempt for young women who get pregnant. Does disgust with a 15 year old who runs away with the aim of marrying an getting pregnant affect reactions either here or in broader society? The Maxine Carr hysteria was not that long ago, and showed  that as a society we still judge women by different standards to men
> 
> I also wonder why reactions to this case are so different from that to the case of the British Citizens and British residents who were detained in Guantanamo. They were, after all, captured by the US in Afghanistan post-invasion. For all its faults Guantanamo was probably safer than a Syrian refugee camp, but there was a strong campaign to get them repatriated, supported by posters here. Perhaps that was more related to hatred of Bush.
> 
> ...



Ok this is heroic whatabouttery now. They were being held without charge and yes there was a campaign to have them released. It was an affront to human rights that they were treated in this way. What the hell has that got to do with this case?

As for your first point, I agree with A380. My reaction has nothing to do with the fact of her getting pregnant and everything to do with her joining IS. I actually suspect this same discussion about a man who'd joined IS in similar circumstances and fulfilled a male role in that twisted society would involve much stronger condemnation.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Yes, much more precarious


 Really?  Legally free to leave the place you chose to go versus being detained without trial and tortured in a place to which you've been kidnapped.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> No one is stopping her coming home, if she does, there's nowt we can do but let her in, investigate, possibly prosecute and jail her, and take her child into care.



Yep, that was all covered on page one of this thread but give yourself a pat on the back for pointing it out anyway.



> There's no requirement for us to 'rescue' her & bring her home, so your comparison is frankly nonsense, Frank, which is hardly surprising coming from you.



Didn't say anything about rescuing her, just that if her going off to foreign lands and getting mixed up in a war is enough to have her thrown in jail and her child taken away and raised by the famously unproblematic care system then sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. There's no moral distinction between this young woman and a British solider in my mind. There's a difference in degree, but given that this woman was legally a child when she left the UK and she doesn't seem to have taken up arms herself that difference is in her favour not the soldier's.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 15, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm not "denying her agency", I specifically said in the second line that she's not absolved of guilt. And yes, the whole point is we know fuck all about her psychology either before, during or after, other than that she was 15 and religious at the start and is talking tough at the finish. Everything else is making assertions based on little more than what a 19-year-old refugee trapped in a camp (which may or may not also have a number of people in it who wouldn't take kindly to say, a full-on recanting of prior affiliations) has to say about her experiences.
> 
> That said, the inability to even imagine that a teenager might have their head turned by a well-executed campaign of propaganda aimed at exploiting alienation, sympathy with repressed Muslim peoples, existing faith etc I find totally weird. Even Scientologists have a decent hit rate with cult recruitment and they're literally selling a space emperor dropping souls into a volcano via a little buzzing gauge. Is this not about 1,000 times more likely than the idea that a 15-year-old independently came to the conclusion that Murder and Torture Is Fine Because The Infidel Must Die from an average teenage daily news diet of I dunno, Newsround and Instagram?



You added the last para when I was replying to you.

Obviously the propaganda is very powerful. I don't have difficulty imagining that, I never said there wasn't a context, in fact I talked about grooming being part of the context in my first post on the subject.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yep, that was all covered on page one of this thread but give yourself a pat on the back for pointing it out anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say anything about rescuing her, just that if her going off to foreign lands and getting mixed up in a war is enough to have her thrown in jail and her child taken away and raised by the famously unproblematic care system then sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. There's no moral distinction between this young woman and a British solider in my mind. There's a difference in degree, but given that this woman was legally a child when she left the UK and she doesn't seem to have taken up arms herself that difference is in her favour not the soldier's.


I really would advise you to read up on Islamic State/Daesh. I'm not sure you quite get just how horrific they are. If you did, you wouldn't be saying this.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 15, 2019)

kicking out the squaddies?
 how are you going to force a large heavily armed organization whose reason is state sponsored violence ask nicely


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Shamima Begum was groomed. She deserves the chance of rehabilitation | Michael Segalov


David Copeland was 22 when he bombed the Admiral Duncan, about 3 years older than Begum is now. Dylann Roof was 21 when he committed the Charleston Shooting. I do not remember people describing them as people who had been groomed in the impressionable years before they became terrorists. 

There is a pretty weird and creep difference between when Islamists or white far right appear in the news either committing atrocity violence or promoting\ associating with it. In the later the condemnation is unequivocal, often accompanied by links to right wing mainstream media as playing a role in radicalising them. But when its Islamists there is a steady stream of equivocations, excuses and "but America did this" or "British soldiers are also war criminals". There seems to be an underling assumption that Islamist violence is partially justified or something.


----------



## Edie (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Yep, that was all covered on page one of this thread but give yourself a pat on the back for pointing it out anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't say anything about rescuing her, just that if her going off to foreign lands and getting mixed up in a war is enough to have her thrown in jail and her child taken away and raised by the famously unproblematic care system then sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. There's no moral distinction between this young woman and a British solider in my mind. There's a difference in degree, but given that this woman was legally a child when she left the UK and she doesn't seem to have taken up arms herself that difference is in her favour not the soldier's.


What are you fucking on about?! There’s no moral difference between a British squaddie and an ISIS terrorist? I really fucking hope you’re just opening your mouth and random shits coming out cos if that’s your serious opinion you have problems


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's no moral distinction between this young woman and a British solider in my mind.


Yes. But that’s because you’re a total fuckwit with the critical faculties of a yoghurt.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I really would advise you to read up on Islamic State/Daesh. I'm not sure you quite get just how horrific they are. If you did, you wouldn't be saying this.



We all know ISIS is bad. That doesn't count as a point.

We also all know that the British state played a major role in creating both ISIS and the chaos in which they flourished. We knew something like this would happen even before the invasion of Iraq, and we invaded anyway.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

Edie said:


> What are you fucking on about?! There’s no moral difference between a British squaddie and an ISIS terrorist? I really fucking hope you’re just opening your mouth and random shits coming out cos if that’s your serious opinion you have problems



I wonder what the people of Iraq think the difference is.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Really?  Legally free to leave the place you chose to go versus being detained without trial and tortured in a place to which you've been kidnapped.



Clearly, she's  no more free or in a position to leave to than those in Guantanamo.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> There's no moral distinction between this young woman and a British solider in my mind.



Despite some very stiff competition, this must be one of the most stupid things you've ever said.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Really?  Legally free to leave the place you chose to go versus being detained without trial and tortured in a place to which you've been kidnapped.



Traumatised people may be no more able to leave an open cell than a locked one.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Despite some very stiff competition, this must be one of the most stupid things you've ever said.



Lots of people telling me how stupid I am, zero people explaining exactly why I'm wrong.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Clearly, she's  no more free or in a position to leave to than those in Guantanamo.



Yes, practically, she's stuck where she chose to place herself.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lots of people telling me how stupid I am, zero people explaining exactly why I'm wrong.



Because it's so obvious that most people assume it goes without saying.  For all the faults of the British state, the idea that the British army routinely uses mass rape, torture and murder of civilians because of e.g. their religion is patently nonsense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Clearly, she's  no more free or in a position to leave to than those in Guantanamo.


 

Is she locked in a small cell inside one of the most highly guarded forts on earth, itself surrounded by minefields, held there by the most powerful military force in the world?

I missed that bit.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Because it's so obvious that most people assume it goes without saying.  For all the faults of the British state, the idea that the British army routinely uses mass rape, torture and murder of civilians because of e.g. their religion is patently nonsense.



Didn't say they did. Just that they were responsible for it, or chose to follow the orders of those responsible.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Didn't say they did. Just that they were responsible for it.



And you* really* think that makes individual British squaddies the moral equivalent of someone who volunteeed to play a supporting role to Daesh's fighters, despite that she must have known the atrocities they were commiting?  Seriously?


----------



## Edie (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> Despite some very stiff competition, this must be one of the most stupid things you've ever said.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> And you* really* think that makes individual British squaddies the moral equivalent of someone who volunteeed to play a supporting role to Daesh's fighters, despite that she must have known the atrocities they were commiting?  Seriously?



Then it just becomes a question of what type of atrocities you want to participate in, and at how many degrees of remove. And once you've got to that point, no I don't think there's a moral line to be drawn. The soldiers who went off to Iraq knew they were aiming to dismantle an entire state in a matter of weeks, and they knew the likely consequences of that. It wasn't a secret, it was the only thing in the news for months.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 15, 2019)

Fucking hell, Frank, is going for gold tonight, in the village idiot competition.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 15, 2019)

British soldiers didn't create the environment for ISIS, their political masters might be accused of that but the soldiers just did what they were ordered to do.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> David Copeland was 22 when he bombed the Admiral Duncan, about 3 years older than Begum is now. Dylann Roof was 21 when he committed the Charleston Shooting. I do not remember people describing them as people who had been groomed in the impressionable years before they became terrorists.
> 
> There is a pretty weird and creep difference between when Islamists or white far right appear in the news either committing atrocity violence or promoting\ associating with it. In the later the condemnation is unequivocal, often accompanied by links to right wing mainstream media as playing a role in radicalising them. But when its Islamists there is a steady stream of equivocations, excuses and "but America did this" or "British soldiers are also war criminals". There seems to be an underling assumption that Islamist violence is partially justified or something.



Copeland may have been only 3 years older during his bombing spree than she is now, but that makes him seven years older than she was when she left the UK. Do you think that there is no difference between  a 15 year old and a 22 year old or even a 21 year old ?

Also she is accused of no other crime than going to Syria. You might not approve of people in their mid-teens fucking and having children, but do you think it is the equivalent of planting a nail-bomb in a pub? If you do, I would consider your ethical values warped.


----------



## Edie (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Copeland may have been only 3 years older during his bombing spree than she is now, but that makes him seven years older than she was when she left the UK. Do you think that there is no difference between  a 15 year old and a 22 year old or even a 21 year old ?
> 
> Also she is accused of no other crime than going to Syria. You might not approve of people in their mid-teens fucking and having children, but do you think it is the equivalent of planting a nail-bomb in a pub? If you do, I would consider your ethical values warped.


Have you just _missed_ the bit about her going to join ISIS?


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Then it just becomes a question of what type of atrocities you want to participate in, and at how many degrees of remove. And once you've got to that point, no I don't think there's a moral line to be drawn. The soldiers who went off to Iraq knew they were aiming to dismantle an entire state in a matter of weeks, and they knew the likely consequences of that. It wasn't a secret, it was the only thing in the news for months.



The average squaddie had no idea how the post-invasion geopolitical situation in Iraq would pan out.  Whereas she knew she was going to help the kind of people who set prisoners on fire.  There's just no equivalence.  I'm actually struggling to believe that even you think there is.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> The average squaddie had no idea how the post-invasion geopolitical situation in Iraq would pan out.



You realise you're supposed to be making points _in favour_ of these squaddies right?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Also she is accused of no other crime than going to Syria.


Belonging to a proscribed terrorist organisation. Listed on page 12: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/670599/20171222_Proscription.pdf


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

weltweit said:


> British soldiers didn't create the environment for ISIS, their political masters might be accused of that but the soldiers just did what they were ordered to do.



Well, at the risk of going all Godwin, I think that using the Nuremberg defence is not the best way of advancing your argument

Superior orders - Wikipedia

*Befehl ist Befehl

I was only following orders*


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> Also she is accused of no other crime than going to Syria.


Jesus, Tim. You're a reasonable man usually. Do you really believe this?

Is this_ genuinely_ what you think is the extent of what's going on here or are you just chanelling Plank for lols?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 15, 2019)

Soldiers assumed their political masters would have a plan


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

likesfish said:


> Soldiers assumed their political masters would have a plan



Well we all know the saying, when you assume you make a decades-long asymmetric warfare shitstorm that claims millions of lives out of U and ME.


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

.


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> We all know ISIS is bad. That doesn't count as a point.
> 
> We also all know that the British state played a major role in creating both ISIS and the chaos in which they flourished. We knew something like this would happen even before the invasion of Iraq, and we invaded anyway.



You seem to be saying it's a bit our problem or fault because of the invasion of Iraq? So, would your position be any different if she was coming back from having been with IS/Boko Haram in Nigeria or IS in the Philippines, or etc. etc.?


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Belonging to a proscribed terrorist organisation. Listed on page 12: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/670599/20171222_Proscription.pdf




Well I'm not convinced that she carries an ISIS Membership Card if such a thing exists, so how would you prove actual membership. And there is a clear difference between joining or even supporting an organisation and murdering people in its name.

 Martin McGuiness said "I have never been in the IRA. I don't have any sway over the IRA". Martin McGuinness - Wikipedia

If the British establishment couldn't frame him or catch him out, will they have more luck with her?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> And there is a clear difference between joining or even supporting an organisation and murdering people in its name.


We're going in circles on this thread now. I don't think there is a clear difference wrt IS at all. She smuggled herself into Syria to join them to help build the new Islamic State, to marry (specifically) a fighter and to have his babies. All for the greater glory of the new order. She is clearly implicated in everything they did. She made common cause with the whole thing.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is she locked in a small cell inside one of the most highly guarded forts on earth, itself surrounded by minefields, held there by the most powerful military force in the world?
> 
> I missed that bit.



Conversely I suppose, anyone in Gitmo is very unlikely to die of any of the waterborne diseases that are rife in refugee camps, nor will they have to sell sex for food or protection, nor do they face the good chance - as experienced by a good number of ex-IS people and their families (including children) - of being dragged out of their shelters within the camps by other armed groups, and shot in the dirt.

I'm not defending Gitmo or the practices that went with it, but I rather fear that in comparing the two, people massively underestimate what a shit place a refugee camp in a warzone can be...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Conversely I suppose, anyone in Gitmo is very unlikely to die of any of the waterborne diseases that are rife in refugee camps, nor will they have to sell sex for food or protection, nor do they face the good chance - as experienced by a good number of ex-IS people and their families (including children) - of being dragged out of their shelters within the camps by other armed groups, and shot in the dirt.
> 
> I'm not defending Gitmo or the practices that went with it, but I rather fear that in comparing the two, people massively underestimate what a shit place a refugee camp in a warzone can be...


Fair point. It was ridiculous to bring up gitmo at all in this context, tbf.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Belonging to a proscribed terrorist organisation. Listed on page 12: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/670599/20171222_Proscription.pdf


What's your call on this now, Pilch? The tenet of forgiveness versus the magnitude of the wrongdoing engaged in, or enabled?  This woman's case is clearly convoluted by her age but doesn't her lack of regret negate that?

There are a dozen or more (serving or ex) British soldiers on these boards, as well as my son. Is it correct or reasonable to equate them all with Islamic State?


----------



## AverageJoe (Feb 15, 2019)

Would you have her as a lodger/renter if and when she gets back. Ask yourself that and then ask yourself why or why not.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Would your position be any different if she was coming back from having been with IS/Boko Haram in Nigeria or IS in the Philippines, or etc. etc.?



My general position is that unless she was in a position of authority or was otherwise known to be directly responsible for atrocities, there is more to be gained from making an effort to rehabilitate her and address the reasons she went in the first place than from locking her up and throwing away the key. That holds for anyone who has been involved in horrible shit anywhere in the world. It goes for people in uniform too. Putting people out of sight and out of mind, whether dead or in jail or sleeping on the streets, robs us of the opportunity to learn from what they experienced, understand how it happened and meaningfully change things to stop it happening again. And it always lets someone worse off the hook.

If this kid goes to jail, that will not help a single living soul. It won't help her child. It won't help us find the people responsible for her going in the first place. It won't unspill a single drop of blood.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> My general position is that unless she was in a position of authority or was otherwise known to be directly responsible for atrocities, there is more to be gained from making an effort to rehabilitate her and address the reasons she went in the first place than from locking her up and throwing away the key. That holds for anyone who has been involved in horrible shit anywhere in the world. It goes for people in uniform too. Putting people out of sight and out of mind, whether dead or in jail or sleeping on the streets, robs us of the opportunity to learn from what they experienced, understand how it happened and meaningfully change things to stop it happening again. And it always lets someone worse off the hook.
> 
> If this kid goes to jail, that will not help a single living soul. It won't help her child. It won't help us find the people responsible for her going in the first place. It won't unspill a single drop of blood.



she's an adult, not a kid.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> If this kid goes to jail,


Show one quote from you describing a 19 year old neo nazi as a kid and defending the value of them avoiding custodial sentences. She went to Syria to offer her self as a sexual prize for an ISIS fighter and appears unrepentant about her involvement. 

She has the right to return to the UK and I have the wacky idea she has the right to free speech and free association. But she is also likely to also face a custodial sentence for membership of a proscribed orginisation, its not like the radical left are calling for members of National Action to be treated with kid gloves and warm Horlicks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

She herself is one of the people responsible for her going in the first place. She herself will need to face up to that fact somehow and to learn to live with it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> she's an adult, not a kid.



Try not to confuse him. 

Anyway, in other news, the family is now calling on the government to bring her home, fuck that.

If they want her home, they can set-up a crowd-funding page, they need to take responsibly.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 15, 2019)

I heard on Radio 5 Live yesterday that the father of one of the other two that went with her (Amiri Abase) took his daughter to three extremist protests in 2012 where the likes of Anjem Choudary were speaking. So maybe not all the grooming came so far from home.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> she's an adult, not a kid.



As has been continually repeated by me and others, she wasn't when she arrived in Syria. 





> A child is anyone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday. Child protection guidance highlights that under-18s who are:
> 
> 
> aged 16 or over;
> ...



Legal definitions


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Show one quote from you describing a 19 year old neo nazi as a kid and defending the value of them avoiding custodial sentences. She went to Syria to offer her self as a sexual prize for an ISIS fighter and appears unrepentant about her involvement.
> 
> She has the right to return to the UK and I have the wacky idea she has the right to free speech and free association. But she is also likely to also face a custodial sentence for membership of a proscribed orginisation, its not like the radical left are calling for members of National Action to be treated with kid gloves and warm Horlicks.



Studies show that nazis who go to prison come out 70-80% less nazi.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Studies show that nazis who go to prison come out 70-80% less nazi.


You are scrambling for relevance.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Show one quote from you describing a 19 year old neo nazi as a kid and defending the value of them avoiding custodial sentences. She went to Syria to offer her self as a sexual prize for an ISIS fighter and appears unrepentant about her involvement.
> 
> She has the right to return to the UK and I have the wacky idea she has the right to free speech and free association. But she is also likely to also face a custodial sentence for membership of a proscribed orginisation, its not like the radical left are calling for members of National Action to be treated with kid gloves and warm Horlicks.



More slut-shaming.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> As has been continually repeated by me and others, she wasn't when she arrived in Syria.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You described her as a 'kid' when talking about her going to jail, now.


----------



## A380 (Feb 15, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> ...If this kid goes to jail, that will not help a single living soul....



Your wrong about this as well. If I’d been kept as a slave of an Isis household I think my path to recovery would be really helped by knowing that one of the people who’d chained me up, stolen my labour,  tried to crush my sense of self and killed my family was locked up and powerless.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Athos said:


> You described her as a 'kid' when talking about her going to jail, now.



I think that your confusing me with SpookyFrank , which I resent, slightly.


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 15, 2019)

likesfish said:


> we should immedialty send williamson javid and boris Johnson to go rescue her purely for the lols they'd be fine anyone who wants to do serious harm to the UK
> unfortunately isn't going to harm a hair on any of them


Considering the amount of harm they've done to the UK they would likely be met with open arms.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> I think that your confusing me with SpookyFrank , which I resent, slightly.



Only slightly?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

A380 said:


> If I’d been kept as a slave of an Isis household I think my path to recovery would be really helped by knowing that one of the people who’d chained me up and killed my family was locked up and powerless.



OK but I think if the same thing happened to me I'd feel the opposite. So now we've got two meaningless hypotheticals in direct opposition we can just cancel them out and move on.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> More slut-shaming.


The fact ISIS openly offered sexual access to "concubines" i.e. captured children and to wives who had volunteered as an inducement to bring men to Syria to murder and die for them is a matter of record. 
Begum sought to marry a single person who she had never met but had shown sufficient vigour in violence to be deemed to merit the reward of a bride. She was not a "slut" but sought to offer herself as a prize. How else can this be described. 
She was not traveling to meet with someone she had fallen in love with but to allow ISIS to pick a stranger for her.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Only slightly?


I don't want to hurt poor SpookyFrank's feelings.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> How else can this be described.



Considering this involved a 15 year old child, and that we can assume some general familiarity with the details of the case, I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep describing it at all.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What's your call on this now, Pilch? The tenet of forgiveness versus the magnitude of the wrongdoing engaged in, or enabled?  This woman's case is clearly convoluted by her age but doesn't her lack of regret negate that?


That she’s a UK citizen, whether we like it or not, and that should she return to the UK cannot be deported. (To where anyway? “The World Caliphate”?)

I agree with those who say 15 is an impressionable age, and that proper analysis of her current relationship with IS should probably wait until such time as she is somewhere she could reasonably be assumed to be speaking freely.

Having listened to her interview I think she sounds unremorseful, blasée about severed heads in bins, and having attitudes consistent with continuing to believe in the rectitude of IS principles, albeit that they have failed to live up to them. That said, I’m not a mind reader, and would agree that it is possible she’s being careful about what she says.

I can see no reason, on the face of it, for the diplomatic service or anyone else to bust a gut getting her home, unless for reasons of seeking a prosecution.

I would point out that the age of criminal responsibility in England is 10. The James Bulger killers, for example, were held responsible for their actions.

IS combatants aged younger than this 19-year-old woman are justifiably killed in battle. They are a vicious aggressor force, with an appalling human rights record. Using force against them is just, and supporting insurrection against their oppression is imperative on anyone who professes human solidarity.  It is not necessary to ask what age they joined up when in the heat of battle.

She admits to travelling to Syria with the intention of joining the Caliphate and applying to marry an IS combatant. She seems to say she does not regret joining IS. This is appears to be admission of a crime in English law. She should therefore be investigated. It would seem to me there is a case to answer. If so, she should be tried for it. If the justice system deems it appropriate to seek her extradition, I could see the logic in that. I wouldn’t see that course as a priority, though.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> The fact ISIS openly offered sexual access to "concubines" i.e. captured children and to wives who had volunteered as an inducement to bring men to Syria to murder and die for them is a matter of record.
> Begum sought to marry a single person who she had never met but had shown sufficient vigour in violence to be deemed to merit the reward of a bride. She was not a "slut" but sought to offer herself as a prize. How else can this be described.
> She was not traveling to meet with someone she had fallen in love with but to allow ISIS to pick a stranger for her.



I don't know the real reason that drove her to leave, anymore than you do, whatever your misogynistic fantasies are.  

I know it'll be more complex than the scenario you mapped out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> I don't know the real reason that drove her to leave, anymore than you do, whatever your misogynistic fantasies are.
> 
> I know it'll be more complex than the scenario you mapped out.


You might not like the way fh puts it, but there are no misogynistic fantasies in there. It's pretty simple factual truth about the matter. There may very well be lots of other truth to come out, but all that fh has said is true, by Begum's own admission.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> I don't know the real reason that drove her to leave, anymore than you do, whatever your misogynistic fantasies are.


She was "driven" to leave?
Something in the UK forced her out of this hell hole towards being a bride of ISIS?
She did not chose to leave and the desire to be a bride of an ISIS murder was not the main appeal?


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> I don't know the real reason that drove her to leave...
> 
> I know it'll be more complex than the scenario you mapped out.



FFS, talk about stating the obvious. Of course the reasons why she left will be complex. Same as for many things of that magnitude, same for why people plant nail bombs in gay pubs in Soho (since that came up). It doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their decisions. As has been pointed out she was above the age of criminal responsibility when she left, is now an adult in every legal sense, and is openly unrepentant - and the idea that she's scared to be critical of IS because of her situation is a joke, she _was_ critical of IS, for not being strong or 'righteous' enough.

"Drove" her to leave. You're making excuses for this which is very dodgy, not to mention patronizing to deny her any agency.

I started out feeling like she should be left where she is and see what pans out, but some of you on here would make me happily push the release a drone button for her now.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 15, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> That she’s a UK citizen, whether we like it or not, and that should she return to the UK cannot be deported. (To where anyway? “The World Caliphate”?)
> 
> I agree with those who say 15 is an impressionable age, and that proper analysis of her current relationship with IS should probably wait until such time as she is somewhere she could reasonably be assumed to be speaking freely.
> 
> ...


I agree with all of this.

What's your take on the assertion that British forces soldiers are 'as bad' as ISIL volunteers?


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I agree with all of this.
> 
> What's your take on the assertion that British forces soldiers are 'as bad' as ISIL volunteers?


Stupid hyperbole.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 15, 2019)

posted without comment


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

Oh christ. Who cares what the audience on QT thinks ? Or the panel for that matter?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I agree with all of this.
> 
> What's your take on the assertion that British forces soldiers are 'as bad' as ISIL volunteers?


You called in the grown-ups to help sort out the stupid?


----------



## weltweit (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh christ. Who cares what the audience on QT thinks ? Or the panel for that matter?


I do, I am interested in a wide range of views.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> FFS, talk about stating the obvious. Of course the reasons why she left will be complex. Same as for many things of that magnitude, same for why people plant nail bombs in gay pubs in Soho (since that came up). It doesn't mean they aren't responsible for their decisions.
> 
> "Drove" her to leave. Your making excuses for this which is very dodgy, not to mention patronizing to deny her any agency.



The David Copeland equivelance, again.

Going to ISIS controlled  Syria at the he age of 15 is a crime, getting pregnant and having children  is not? Planting a nail bomb,at the age of 22, in a pub that kills three people and mutilates others is also a crime. Do you think that the first crime, is of the same magnitude as the second? That seems to be an easy question to answer.


----------



## Athos (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> I think that your confusing me with SpookyFrank , which I resent, slightly.


My apologies.


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What's your take on the assertion that British forces soldiers are 'as bad' as ISIL volunteers?



Not aimed at me I know but....

I think this must leave the person that thinks this in a very odd place politically and socially with regards to the rest of the population of the UK. There's about 230,000 members of the UK Armed Forces. Say each of them has on average 10 family members and close friends.

That's about 2.5 million people in the UK with a direct and close connection to currently serving members and you think that basically are on a par with IS? That must be very depressing to live in the UK surrounded by that.

And no wonder many people think the left is totally bonkers.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I do, I am interested in a wide range of views.


Well I suspect the motives of such people. Would they be saying that if Begum (and her parents appealing for help) were white?


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> The David Copeland equivelance, again.
> 
> Going to ISIS controlled  Syria at the he age of 15 is a crime, getting pregnant and having children  is not? Planting a nail bomb,at the age of 22, in a pub that kills three people and mutilates others is also a crime. Do you think that the first crime, is of the same magnitude as the second? That seems to be an easy question to answer.



I didn't say anything about them being equivalent or similar crimes, I said they reasons why they did what they did were both complex.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 15, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well I suspect the motives of such people. Would they be saying that if Begum (and her parents appealing for help) were white?


Based on one clip it seems a bit harsh to already bandy the racism card about don't you think?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Not aimed at me I know but....
> 
> I think this must leave the person that thinks this in a very odd place politically and socially with regards to the rest of the population of the UK. There's about 230,000 members of the UK Armed Forces. Say each of them has on average 10 family members and close friends.
> 
> ...



Not all those personnel participated in an illegal war of agression. Those that did, I've said already I think they should be looked after better than they are now.

My point has always been that you can't be holding people to different standards just because they wear the correct flag.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 15, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Based on one clip it seems a bit harsh to already bandy the racism card about don't you think?


And therein lies the problem with posting such things in the first place.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I do, I am interested in a wide range of views.



Do they have those on Question Time these days? Robin Day is clearly upping his ante


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> "Drove" her to leave. You're making excuses for this which is very dodgy, not to mention patronizing to deny her any agency.



We all have psychological drives that impell us to take the actions that we do, do we not? Correct me if my psychological terminology is misapplied or out of date.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2019)

Psychological drives do not deny personal 'agency'...they are very much a part of it. They are a dynamic of it. It's more complex and interactive than unconscious/not my fault vs fully present, reasoned and in control.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> Not sure if it's been mentioned but I'm just wondering whether anyone is aware of the (government run) 'Prevent
> (...) it _absolutely_ compares radicalisation to (for eg) sexual abuse, in terms of the potential for grooming.
> 
> Within that, the process of making travel arrangements is also never (quite fucking obviously, imo - fucking hell, have you ever listened to teenagers trying to make even basic arrangments) one that will have fallen to the _child _(and that's written into the training,
> ...



Nothing I have heard about Prevent inspires confidence. Obviously there are parallels between online grooming and recruiting teenagers to the likes of Daesh, but the two activities aren't exactly equivalent and you can see how the Government might have an agenda in conflating the two.

This wasn't some blokes in Rotherham getting vulnerable teenagers pissed and taking advantage of them. A lot of the grooming seemed to have consisted in women, many of them quite young themselves, encouraging their peers to follow their lead.
No doubt this included practical tips about how to get there, but I haven't seen anything to suggest flights were being paid for and their would be a paper trial if this was the case.
None of this is to suggest Daesh isn't a regressively patriarchal set up.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 15, 2019)

Uk forces don't own slaves or go on rape sprees or gleefully behead aid workers. 
  Last person to behead) someone killed in combat) int wanted an I'd and they'd left the camera behind so ghurkha improvised got into a lot of trouble.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 15, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> How can they actually refuse entry though if she just pitches up at Heathrow?



She wouldn't get that far as she'd be refused boarding (Assuming the piece I read was accurate)


----------



## LDC (Feb 15, 2019)

Interesting thread here....

Thread by @Hegghammer: "Long thread on foreign fighter repatriation. The question is immensely complicated, and I do not have a clear answer, but I have some though […]"


----------



## stuff_it (Feb 15, 2019)

It sounds very much like her main hope is to give herunborn child access to the sort of medical care that may well have prevented the death of her previous two children. Given that her foetus will be a British citizen, and indeed will be in the care of a mum who oculd concieveably be considered as less than competent (since she is a proponent of violence who has tried several times already to have children in a war zone), I think the question is "should the UK government be doing more to retrieve her _*and her child*_. She obviously cares enough about the baby to be open to the idea of being prosecuted on her return in order to give it a better life, and it's definitely not the baby's fault that it's mum has made some questionable decisions.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 15, 2019)

My natural inclinations are kindness and fairness, but her affiliation to an especially nasty group of mass murderers can't be ignored.
My opinion hardly matters to reality, but I'm having to think carefully before I decide on a personal stance. Her age at the time means she could be considered to be an idealistic young fool (Not intended as an insult, more an opinion) and growing up a little might mean she's worked out her actions were silly.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 15, 2019)

stuff_it said:


> questionable decisions.



Mild - Her choices were clearly bloody stupid


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> some of you on here would make me happily push the release a drone button for her now



This thread's gone to some pretty weird places, but "happily push the release a drone button" on a pregnant woman is not something I think is even slightly acceptable to write, even if you think it's mainly a method to bare your teeth at another poster. Fucking hell.


----------



## tim (Feb 15, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Psychological drives do not deny personal 'agency'...they are very much a part of it. They are a dynamic of it. It's more complex and interactive than unconscious/not my fault vs fully present, reasoned and in control.



I never claimed they didn't involve personal agency


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2019)

tim said:


> I never claimed they didn't involve personal agency



I know. I was responding to another post that was disconnecting the relationship between unconscious drives/influences and agency...we are never just one or the other than in infancy surely?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I started out feeling like she should be left where she is and see what pans out, but some of you on here would make me happily push the release a drone button for her now.




...rather than you actually thinking she deserved it via her own actions? Bizarre.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

The art of rhetoric is wasted on some people.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> The art of rhetoric is lost on some people.



Art?  There's a lot to be said for plain speaking IMO. Some would argue it's an art too.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Nothing I have heard about Prevent inspires confidence. Obviously there are parallels between online grooming and recruiting teenagers to the likes of Daesh, but the two activities aren't exactly equivalent and you can see how the Government might have an agenda in conflating the two.
> 
> This wasn't some blokes in Rotherham getting vulnerable teenagers pissed and taking advantage of them. A lot of the grooming seemed to have consisted in women, many of them quite young themselves, encouraging their peers to follow their lead.
> No doubt this included practical tips about how to get there, but I haven't seen anything to suggest flights were being paid for and their would be a paper trial if this was the case.
> None of this is to suggest Daesh isn't a regressively patriarchal set up.



I do agree with loads of that and honestly, I'm not suggesting there's an obvious way to fall.
I don't think that Prevent was ever set with no agenda but then I'm equally confused when it's turned against _children_ who may have been manipulated (and does it matter who by?), _after the fact_. Does that make sense?  It might not!


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper makes a rhetorical point and now everyones getting indignant, like they've actually advocated a drone strike on a kurdish refugee camp.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Feb 15, 2019)

I'd like to see her plight taken up by an impartial and neutral organisation who specialises in this such as the red cross


----------



## kebabking (Feb 15, 2019)

Apropos of little, but listening to a couple of those who have studied the 'grooming' aspects of IS's recruitment efforts, it appears that there is a difference in between the boys/young men and the girls/young women: by and large, the boys come from the more vunerable, gullable, disaffected, not-quite-the-full-shilling end of the human pool, while the girls tend to be very bright, very assimilated/integrated, and with social capital.

Not in every case of course, but there is a very definite trend. The two I listened to seemed to think that the girls were more likely to be proactive about joining IS than the boys, more likely to seek them out online, and to be a great deal clearer about what it was they were getting involved it.

Innocent victims they certainly weren't.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 15, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> LynnDoyleCooper makes a rhetorical point and now everyones getting indignant, like they've actually advocated a drone strike on a kurdish refugee camp.



I'm not suggesting he'd actually advocate it (seriously, I can't believe I'm having to explain this), I'm saying it's not cool to throw up a drone strike joke about the Middle East aimed at a pregnant teenager for the sake of flashing two fingers at a poster you don't like. He's not Frankie Boyle and this isn't 2009.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 15, 2019)

ice-is-forming said:


> I'd like to see her plight taken up by an impartial and neutral organisation who specialises in this such as the red cross


I would think the red crescent might have more success.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Feb 15, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Apropos of little, but listening to a couple of those who have studied the 'grooming' aspects of IS's recruitment efforts, it appears that there is a difference in between the boys/young men and the girls/young women: by and large, the boys come from the more vunerable, gullable, disaffected, not-quite-the-full-shilling end of the human pool, while the girls tend to be very bright, very assimilated/integrated, and with social capital.
> 
> Not in every case of course, but there is a very definite trend. The two I listened to seemed to think that the girls were more likely to be proactive about joining IS than the boys, more likely to seek them out online, and to be a great deal clearer about what it was they were getting involved it.
> 
> Innocent victims they certainly weren't.



So why does that happen? Why do those girls feel like that? Why did those girls commit to it together?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 15, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm not suggesting he'd actually advocate it (seriously, I can't believe I'm having to explain this), I'm saying it's not cool to throw up a drone strike joke about the Middle East aimed at a pregnant teenager for the sake of flashing two fingers at a poster you don't like. He's not Frankie Boyle and this isn't 2009.



She was recruited by an organisation that used snuff movies for propaganda, as well as drones to help lay waste to large chunks of Syria. She still expresses no regrets and speaks casually about why it might have been necessary to murder journalists, a sentiment I share rhetorically at times to be fair, but you know her associates actually did it. The people running her refugee camp are probably only alive because they called in drone strikes against these associates... frankly a bit of gallows humour from a stranger online is the least of her worries.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> So why does that happen? Why do those girls feel like that? Why did those girls commit to it together?


It suggests to me something other than desperation. Perhaps desperation at the state of the world in general, at injustice, something teenagers can feel very sharply, rather than a sense of personal desperation in their everyday lives. That could be tied to something hopeful and idealistic. Something ambitious and worthwhile to counter the injustice. IS is nothing if not idealistic, after all, a promise to build an entire new society based on God's law.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She was recruited by an organisation that used snuff movies for propaganda ... frankly a bit of gallows humour from a stranger online is the least of her worries.



Tell you what, if she shows up and starts making jokes about bombing buses on here I'll be equally critical. Fair? And it wasn't "gallows humour" it was a snide remark using a shitty premise.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It suggests to me something other than desperation. Perhaps desperation at the state of the world in general, at injustice, something teenagers can feel very sharply, rather than a sense of personal desperation in their everyday lives. That could be tied to something hopeful and idealistic. Something ambitious and worthwhile to counter the injustice. IS is nothing if not idealistic, after all, a promise to build an entire new society based on God's law.


Do you know what it's like to be a girl born into a Bangladeshi family in Bethnal Green circa 2000 till now? What generalisations might we agree?
How can we have this conversation if it's all about well 'she must have known X' but devoid of who, where and how she was living/was.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Feb 16, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> This thread's gone to some pretty weird places, but "happily push the release a drone button" on a pregnant woman is not something I think is even slightly acceptable to write, even if you think it's mainly a method to bare your teeth at another poster. Fucking hell.



No, she should have been shot (and killed) by a syrian revolutionary. but you know, when the international community didn't want the fall of bashar, then Assad was able to make them a busted flush. as for all this debate, everything is the saudis fault isn't it?

I've seen people (with my own eyes) go ultra-conservative and salafist. it's not really comparable to IS. even the hard core salafis I know don't back IS. they are very very reactionary, let's not be coy about it, but they are generally involved in theological sectarianism and political quietism. there was probably a lot of psychological coercion but this tosh about believeing in IS refounding a better world, noone believes that in the muslim community. The wealthy went over there to crush the revs (I don't believe Begum is wealthy or from a wealthy family although who knows with east london these days.) Probably has some sociopathic tendancies who knows, but that's not really something I'm gonna spend hours thinking about, making a psychological profile of someone who would first and foremost kill me (not youse.)

The problem with british masjids is not their conservatism, turkish masjids are just as conservative and patriarchal, the problem is their open and direct hard core gaslighting. that style of preaching inherited from 20th century pan-islamic anticolonial struggles even whilst the people making these speeches are integrated into the british state and even admit total *state loyalty and fidelity.* that is the real issue here, not whether she was indoctrinated but you try and tell that to the darlings of the middle eastern left in this godforsaken country with their white bootlicking (ahem) 'allies.' My baba was a socialist and a professor in the 70s! oh, get out of my face then...

There's a reason why the left in the middle east in the 60s-70s early 80s were hard core secularists. but people don't want to acknowledge that today. anything to cling on their utterly irrelevant identity that noone cares about coz we've all exited politics *shakes my head.*


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We're going in circles on this thread now. I don't think there is a clear difference wrt IS at all. She smuggled herself into Syria to join them to help build the new Islamic State, to marry (specifically) a fighter and to have his babies. All for the greater glory of the new order. She is clearly implicated in everything they did. She made common cause with the whole thing.



There is no islamic state there was no islamic state ffs why do you always make these propagandised points (at face value like a loyal counter-terror expert) and not call isis what it is? a racket. not a caliphate even in the traditional imperial sense. Sort it out.

If she's that ideologically committed to IS, if she knows the tradition, then she's not being groomed from a position of islamic ignorance. this all seems shady as fuck but anything to protect a 'british citizen' whilst the undeserving british or not, are fucked over. noone talking about the charter flights to Jamaica in the news (as in the news media, not on this forum...) just this eejit.

and I saw on my twitter some people trying to justify her as a prole that needs to have restorative justice applied. How do you do restorative justice to the class enemy? some people are trying to make this a mad political thing. she needs help, definitely, but this isn't a grand political project. it isn't really much to do with islamophobia either.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Feb 16, 2019)

dp.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Feb 16, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> I'm not "denying her agency", I specifically said in the second line that she's not absolved of guilt. And yes, the whole point is we know fuck all about her psychology either before, during or after, other than that she was 15 and religious at the start and is talking tough at the finish. Everything else is making assertions based on little more than what a 19-year-old refugee trapped in a camp (which may or may not also have a number of people in it who wouldn't take kindly to say, a full-on recanting of prior affiliations) has to say about her experiences.
> 
> That said, the inability to even imagine that a teenager might have their head turned by a well-executed campaign of propaganda aimed at exploiting alienation, sympathy with repressed Muslim peoples, existing faith etc I find totally weird. Even Scientologists have a decent hit rate with cult recruitment and they're literally selling a space emperor dropping souls into a volcano via a little buzzing gauge. Is this not about 1,000 times more likely than the idea that a 15-year-old independently came to the conclusion that Murder and Torture Is Fine Because The Infidel Must Die from an average teenage daily news diet of I dunno, Newsround and Instagram?



A well executed propaganda campaign that was (turned a blind eye to, if not patronised) by the british state. oh but you think this starts with ISIS don't you? loool no, I remember in 03-04, how at schools there would be juma prayers, and everything from celebrating the prophets birth, to listening to music, to wishing non-believers a merry christmas, to talking to members of the opposite sex was all declared prohibited. some people still, still cannot understand why I'm always angry. that's why because our state schools are still fundamentally multicultural theocratic schools. Tell me, in religious studies, do you even begin to learn about how the historiography of islam was contested by the early muslims? no because the whole point is liberal tolerance, they don't teach you religion, with all of its messsy contradictions and contestations, they teach you the hagiography and victory of the dominant.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> Stupid hyperbole.


Cheers. If you had given that any currency I would have had to consider it.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> So why does that happen? Why do those girls feel like that? Why did those girls commit to it together?


Why did many thousands of others ... not?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Do you know what it's like to be a girl born into a Bangladeshi family in Bethnal Green circa 2000 till now? What generalisations might we agree?
> How can we have this conversation if it's all about well 'she must have known X' but devoid of who, where and how she was living/was.


Is this a joke or a wind-up?

I know quite a few lads and girls from Beffers and surrounding areas who haven't fucked-off across continents to join "ISIL" rape colonies.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 16, 2019)

Problem is if she comes back to the UK there's a none zero chance she packs her baby's pram with explosives and kills herself her kid and a few others for reasons


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I know. I was responding to another post that was disconnecting the relationship between unconscious drives/influences and agency...we are never just one or the other than in infancy surely?



I don't think that was what was meant by drove, I think the 'it' that drove was thought of as something external rather than an unconscious psychological drive.

I agree it's not possible to think about motivation without thinking about unconscious aspects, or unknown aspects of our mind or personality. Without that, the discussion becomes conscious agency vs being forced by somebody else and about blame. Of course, like I already said, we don't anything about this young woman's mind, other than what is visible through her actions, but I think it would help a lot of discussions about behaviour that we don't understand to have a greater sense of psychological complexity, to recognise that we're all 'driven' by parts of ourselves we're not aware of.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Apropos of little, but listening to a couple of those who have studied the 'grooming' aspects of IS's recruitment efforts, it appears that there is a difference in between the boys/young men and the girls/young women: by and large, the boys come from the more vunerable, gullable, disaffected, not-quite-the-full-shilling end of the human pool, while the girls tend to be very bright, very assimilated/integrated, and with social capital.
> 
> Not in every case of course, but there is a very definite trend. The two I listened to seemed to think that the girls were more likely to be proactive about joining IS than the boys, more likely to seek them out online, and to be a great deal clearer about what it was they were getting involved it.
> 
> Innocent victims they certainly weren't.



What did you listen to?


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

dialectician said:


> No, she should have been shot (and killed) by a syrian revolutionary. but you know, when the international community didn't want the fall of bashar, then Assad was able to make them a busted flush. as for all this debate, everything is the saudis fault isn't it?
> 
> I've seen people (with my own eyes) go ultra-conservative and salafist. it's not really comparable to IS. even the hard core salafis I know don't back IS. they are very very reactionary, let's not be coy about it, but they are generally involved in theological sectarianism and political quietism. there was probably a lot of psychological coercion but this tosh about believeing in IS refounding a better world, noone believes that in the muslim community. The wealthy went over there to crush the revs (I don't believe Begum is wealthy or from a wealthy family although who knows with east london these days.) Probably has some sociopathic tendancies who knows, but that's not really something I'm gonna spend hours thinking about, making a psychological profile of someone who would first and foremost kill me (not youse.)
> 
> ...





dialectician said:


> There is no islamic state there was no islamic state ffs why do you always make these propagandised points (at face value like a loyal counter-terror expert) and not call isis what it is? a racket. not a caliphate even in the traditional imperial sense. Sort it out.
> 
> If she's that ideologically committed to IS, if she knows the tradition, then she's not being groomed from a position of islamic ignorance. this all seems shady as fuck but anything to protect a 'british citizen' whilst the undeserving british or not, are fucked over. noone talking about the charter flights to Jamaica in the news (as in the news media, not on this forum...) just this eejit.
> 
> and I saw on my twitter some people trying to justify her as a prole that needs to have restorative justice applied. How do you do restorative justice to the class enemy? some people are trying to make this a mad political thing. she needs help, definitely, but this isn't a grand political project. it isn't really much to do with islamophobia either.



Thanks. Thoughtful posts by someone with more than just a cursory understanding of what’s actually going on.

What on Earth are you doing on this thread?


----------



## NoXion (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> More slut-shaming.



Can I just say that this is absolutely the _most twisted_ usage of this particular term I have ever seen? And I thought liberals were bad for that kind of thing.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> What did you listen to?



It was on Radio 4, either the world at one or PM, on Friday (yesterday) - I realise this is all terribly unsourced, but the two experts/commentators sounded pretty clued up. One was an American, an academic I think, and the other a journalist who specialises in the European jihadis.

If there are better sources i'd'be interested in reading them, but the gist is certainly something i've read several times over the last 5 years or so.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

The family solicitor Mohammed Akunjee is an islamcist with a track record in supporting CAGE, alleging that the security servies were responsible for Lee Rigbys death as they gave one of his killers a hard time,  advising Muslims not to cooperate with Prevent or any other counter terrorism initiatives and said  it’s not extremism to call for death of British soldiers as its their job to die.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

Terrible story . One minute this family has packed their suncream, swimming gear and holiday reading for a break in the Turkish sun  and the next minute they end up ,to their surprise, joining the ISIS state.
'We were going on holiday but ended up in Syria'- British family detained for Isil links plea for return to Britain


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> The family solicitor Mohammed Akunjee is an islamcist with a track record in supporting CAGE, alleging that the security servies were responsible for Lee Rigbys death as they gave one of his killers a hard time,  advising Muslims not to cooperate with Prevent or any other counter terrorism initiatives and said  it’s not extremism to call for death of British soldiers as its their job to die.



Well, thats their PR campaign down the shitter then...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> The family solicitor Mohammed Akunjee is an islamcist with a track record in supporting CAGE, alleging that the security servies were responsible for Lee Rigbys death as they gave one of his killers a hard time,  advising Muslims not to cooperate with Prevent or any other counter terrorism initiatives and said  it’s not extremism to call for death of British soldiers as its their job to die.


The family are also victims here though, aren't they? This twat solicitor will have approached them to further his own agenda. Hopefully they'll disengage the cunt pretty quickly.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Well, thats their PR campaign down the shitter then...


He's also got the 15 year old Syrian kid who got beat up on his books.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 16, 2019)

i imagine the family wouldn't have anyone else offering to represent them and is proactive looking for clients


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 16, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Can I just say that this is absolutely the _most twisted_ usage of this particular term I have ever seen? And I thought liberals were bad for that kind of thing.



Yep, "slut" isn't exactly the first word I'd reach for when describing somebody who ran away to join a group that stoned adulterers to death.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 16, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Can I just say that this is absolutely the _most twisted_ usage of this particular term I have ever seen? And I thought liberals were bad for that kind of thing.



Yeh, I don't really get this interpretation. I think that violent women evoke more hatred than men and that this woman is a good example of that (even if her violence is by proxy) and we should think about that in our reactions to this story, and this may even include an unconscious coupling of sex and violence that makes women, especially mothers, seem even more abhorrent, but these cultural processes are very complex, I wouldn't call it slut shaming.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The family are also victims here though, aren't they? This twat solicitor will have approached them to further his own agenda. Hopefully they'll disengage the cunt pretty quickly.



There were two other girls who went with her to join ISIS, Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana. The latter died in an airstrike. Amira's dad took her when she was 13 to three rallies organised by  Al-Muhajiroun. Al-Muhajiroun are banned under the Terrorist legislation. He actually attended three of their protests, also at the protests were  Anjem Choudary and Michael Adebowale. When he was interviewed after her disappearance he said he couldnt think of any reason why she would go to Syria, he was asked if Amira had been exposed to any extremism, he replied: ‘Not at all. Nothing.’


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> There were two other girls who went with her to join ISIS, Amira Abase and Kadiza Sultana. The latter died in an airstrike. Amira's dad took her when she was 13 to three rallies organised by  Al-Muhajiroun. Al-Muhajiroun are banned under the Terrorist legislation. He actually attended three of their protests, also at the protests were  Anjem Choudary and Michael Adebowale. When he was interviewed after her disappearance he said he couldnt think of any reason why she would go to Syria, he was asked if Amira had been exposed to any extremism, he replied: ‘Not at all. Nothing.’


Actually, yes you're right. Begum's father was on the news yesterday, crying and saying that he regretted his own (islamist) actions of the past.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

Rob Ray said:


> Tell you what, if she shows up and starts making jokes about bombing buses on here I'll be equally critical. Fair? And it wasn't "gallows humour" it was a snide remark using a shitty premise.


She's said plenty that is offensive. The main difference is that she gives every appearance of being entirely in earnest.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Terrible story . One minute this family has packed their suncream, swimming gear and holiday reading for a break in the Turkish sun  and the next minute they end up ,to their surprise, joining the ISIS state.
> 'We were going on holiday but ended up in Syria'- British family detained for Isil links plea for return to Britain


Happens all the time. One minute you're going down to the pool bar for a mojito in Bodrum, the next you wake up amidst a drone strike in Raqqa, have 2 kids, and can't escape for years.


----------



## felixthecat (Feb 16, 2019)

Someone has just sent me this - Katie Hopkins take on the situation. 



It's to wind me up because they know how much I despise this vile woman and every last word that comes out of her bigoted mouth


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...rather than you actually thinking she deserved it via her own actions? Bizarre.


She left the UK with the express intention of becoming an accomplice to rape and murder. I couldn't care less what happens to her.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 16, 2019)

felixthecat said:


> Someone has just sent me this - Katie Hopkins take on the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> It's to wind me up because they know how much I despise this vile woman and every last word that comes out of her bigoted mouth




It brings up some valid questions - is this woman so twisted by hate that she can never integrate back into society, or is there any hope of redemption? What's to stop her connecting with other extremists? Should she be allowed to live a life of freedom, or kept in custody until it can be determined that she's not as dangerous as she might seem?

Sorry for the derail, back to Shamima Begum...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2019)




----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

I can’t wait for some posters to pop up and say Katie Hopkins shouldn’t be held accountable for her actions for some reason...


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She was recruited by an organisation that used snuff movies for propaganda, as well as drones to help lay waste to large chunks of Syria. She still expresses no regrets and speaks casually about why it might have been necessary to murder journalists, a sentiment I share rhetorically at times to be fair, but you know her associates actually did it. The people running her refugee camp are probably only alive because they called in drone strikes against these associates... frankly a bit of gallows humour from a stranger online is the least of her worries.



"She expresses no regrets". Has it occurred to you that she is unable to speak freely? I would be wary of taking the Times report as gospel, who knows who else is in the camp.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 16, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> "She expresses no regrets". Has it occurred to you that she is unable to speak freely?



She spoke pretty freely about IS deserving to fail. So in what way is she unable to speak freely? What do you know that we don't?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She left the UK with the express intention of becoming an accomplice to rape and murder.


There's no way of finessing this point really. Nonsense about how hard her life here must have been doesn't cut it - and is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions anyway. She grew up in a Bangladeshi family in Bethnal Green so must have had a deprived childhood? Get to fuck. That just doesn't hold water. A glance at educational achievement records shows that - high numbers of Bangladeshi girls doing well at school and going on to university. The idea that she was somehow driven to this by the evilness of British society is simply nonsense, and dangerous nonsense imo as it potentially obscures the actual motivations and drivers. The answers, if there are answers, are simply not that easy.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> "She expresses no regrets". Has it occurred to you that she is unable to speak freely? I would be wary of taking the Times report as gospel, who knows who else is in the camp.



And, yet, she felt free enough to say:
 "And there is so much oppression and corruption going on that I don't really think they [IS] deserve victory."

Not able to 'speak freely', my arse.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She spoke pretty freely about IS deserving to fail. So in what way is she unable to speak freely? What do you know that we don't?



I don't know anything but I would be wary of taking the times interview as straightforwardly indicative of her state of mind.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> And, yet, she felt free enough to say:
> "And there is so much oppression and corruption going on that I don't really think they [IS] deserve victory."



Might be an acceptable form of critique to true believers.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Feb 16, 2019)

MrSki said:


> I would think the red crescent might have more success.



Same org different logo


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She left the UK with the express intention of becoming an accomplice to rape and murder. I couldn't care less what happens to her.


I couldnt either . However returning jihaads/brides of jihaads is a complex issue and one size solution won't fit all. Its estimated that anywhere between 400-500 have returned with various levels of risk to our security , 40 prosecuted others offered support programmes and others under surveillance.  The vast majority apparantly didnt stay very long with ISIS and all returned voluntarily. This most recent case is a little bit different in that she is one of the first being forced to consider come back not because of disullsionment but by military defeat. She and anyone else wanting to returned have stayed to the death. They are going to be harder to rehabilitate, if indeed they even want to . In some cases they could present a risk to others in terms of contamination/radicalisation. They are going to find it hard to be anonymous, hard to find work, they may have pyschiatric disorders and for those with children there are child protection issues. Some should be stripped of British citzenship in my view and left there ( although I have sympathy for the Kurds having to put up with them) others allowed back and prosecuted if there is sufficient evidence but I find it hard to make a case for us going over and facilitating their return.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 16, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> I don't know anything but I would be wary of taking the times interview as straightforwardly indicative of her state of mind.



Seems that some folk are just desperate for anything to grab hold of that excuse her actions. Sometimes you need to accept that some people are just cunts.


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

Ha


The Pale King said:


> "She expresses no regrets". Has it occurred to you that she is unable to speak freely? I would be wary of taking the Times report as gospel, who knows who else is in the camp.


Have you listened to the interview? If so why do you think she felt safe enough to criticise IS but not to express regrets?


----------



## MrSki (Feb 16, 2019)

ice-is-forming said:


> Same org different logo


Given the situation, I think the logo might matter.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Seems that some folk are just desperate for anything to grab hold of that excuse her actions. Sometimes you need to accept that some people are just cunts.



Fuck off. I said upthread she should face justice in Britain and very possibly spend the rest of her life in prison. But I will not take as gospel what she is reported saying in the times. There might be reasons why she uses the form of words she does. I look forward to her facing justice.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

A380 said:


> Ha
> 
> Have you listened to the interview? If so why do you think she felt safe enough to criticise IS but not to express regrets?



No just read the article in today's times. To be clear, my objection i treating the interview as though it were a statement in a court of law and using it to say she should be made stateless. I look forward to her going on trial.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers. If you had given that any currency I would have had to consider it.


I understand where it’s coming from, but he overstated his case in hyperbolic fashion.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 16, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> Fuck off. I said upthread she should face justice in Britain and very possibly spend the rest of her life in prison. But I will not take as gospel what she is reported saying in the times. There might be reasons why she uses the form of words she does. I look forward to her facing justice.



She's not reported as saying anything, she is recorded speaking plainly on film, stating she has no regrets about running away to join ISIS, that she feels ISIS deserve to fail as they are not hardcore enough, ffs.

And whatever prosecution she may face should she get her arse back to the UK, it will not involve life without parole. And she can't be made stateless.

Get a grip.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Seems that some folk are just desperate for anything to grab hold of that excuse her actions.


It presses all the leftie twonk buttons; brown skin, female, muslim ... Can do no wrong!

If this were a white, nazi, male, Christian, who'd been greasing the wheels of the rape and murder of black Africans, most of the posters on this thread would have suddenly developed a taste for capital punishment.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She's not reported as saying anything, she is recorded speaking plainly on film, stating she has no regrets about running away to join ISIS, that she feels ISIS deserve to fail as they are not hardcore enough, ffs.
> 
> And whatever prosecution she may face should she get her arse back to the UK, it will not involve life without parole. And she can't be made stateless.
> 
> Get a grip.



I said I would be perfectly happy for her to spend the rest of her life in prison (made no comment on judicial system/life terms per se), in response to someone who said I was trying to excuse her actions, which I was not and have not done.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> "She expresses no regrets". Has it occurred to you that she is unable to speak freely? I would be wary of taking the Times report as gospel, who knows who else is in the camp.



I don't know if you've read her interview, but she quite happily goes on about how IS deserved to lose because they became corrupt. Not, I would suggest, the comments of one who has to hide her thoughts because theres an IS minder standing behind her with a bucket of unleaded...


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It presses all the leftie twonk buttons; brown skin, female, muslim ... Can do no wrong!
> 
> If this were a white nazi male who'd been greasing the wheels of the rape and murder of black Africans, most of the posters on this thread would have suddenly developed a taste for capital punishment.


Yep, 'of course an asian, muslim woman can't possibly be responsible for their actions' : racism pure and simple. The more enlightened of us know that people of asian heritage  can be complete fucking idiots, specially after a few too many beers....


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I don't know if you've read her interview, but she quite happily goes on about how IS deserved to lose because they became corrupt. Not, I would suggest, the comments of one who has to hide her thoughts because theres an IS minder standing behind her with a bucket of unleaded...



Sure, could be the critique of the true believer.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 16, 2019)

A380 said:


> Yep, 'of course an asian, muslim woman can't possibly be responsible for their actions' : racism pure and simple. The more enlightened of us know that people of asian decent can be complete fucking idiots, specially after a few too many beers....



Hardly culturally specific - you should see what Whitey gets up to round my way after a few bevvies...


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

8ball said:


> Hardly culturally specific - you should see what Whitey gets up to round my way after a few bevvies...


I was actually being very very specific...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 16, 2019)

A380 said:


> Yep, 'of course an asian, muslim woman can't possibly be responsible for their actions' : racism pure and simple. The more enlightened of us know that people of asian heritage  can be complete fucking idiots, specially after a few too many beers....


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> Fuck off. I said upthread she should face justice in Britain and very possibly spend the rest of her life in prison. But I will not take as gospel what she is reported saying in the times. There might be reasons why she uses the form of words she does. I look forward to her facing justice.



What crime has she been accused of that under English law would merit a full life tariff? 

The infamous Anjem Choudary, who was sentenced  for crimes committed as an adult, served 2 years before being released on licence. You may want to "throw the key away" etc, but those aren't the sentences English courts hand down.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2019)

A380 said:


> Yep, 'of course an asian, muslim woman can't possibly be responsible for their actions' : racism pure and simple. The more enlightened of us know that people of asian heritage  can be complete fucking idiots, specially after a few too many beers....



I mean we can all make up shit nobody said and then point out how bad it is to score some easy points but that's not very informative is it?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It presses all the leftie twonk buttons; brown skin, female, muslim ... Can do no wrong!
> 
> If this were a white nazi male who'd been greasing the wheels of the rape and murder of black Africans, most of the posters on this thread would have suddenly developed a taste for capital punishment.



Most posters on the thread have been critical and emphasised her agency.


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I mean we can all make up shit nobody said and then point out how bad it is to score some easy points but that's not very informative is it?


And you normally do.


----------



## The Pale King (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> What crime has she been accused of that under English law would merit a full life tariff?
> 
> The infamous Anjem Choudary, who was sentenced  for crimes committed as an adult, served 2 years before being released on licence. You may want to "throw the key away" etc, but those aren't the sentences English courts hand down.



I don't think she has been. But she may well have participated in or witnessed slavery and genocide. You are quite right about the law, my language was loose.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's no way of finessing this point really. Nonsense about how hard her life here must have been doesn't cut it - and is based on a bunch of unproven assumptions anyway. She grew up in a Bangladeshi family in Bethnal Green so must have had a deprived childhood? Get to fuck. That just doesn't hold water. A glance at educational achievement records shows that - high numbers of Bangladeshi girls doing well at school and going on to university. The idea that she was somehow driven to this by the evilness of British society is simply nonsense, and dangerous nonsense imo as it potentially obscures the actual motivations and drivers. The answers, if there are answers, are simply not that easy.


Who has argued those points exactly? Or have you just assumed that was what was meant?

What do you actually know about her upbringing? I am more interested in her actual influences and education, not what you assume she did or didn't know/was motivated by.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Most posters on the thread have been critical and emphasised her agency.


Bollocks.

There are loads of people posting here who we've all seen earnestly wish painful deaths on others just for voting for mainstream political parties they don't like or for chasing foxes on horseback. Those very same idiots are on this thread now, wringing their hands over this scumbag who pissed off to Syria for 4 years to engage in a spot of genocidal rape and torture. 'Ooooh, she was only 15' ... 'poor girl grew up in Bethnal Green' ... 'you can't expect her to express remorse from a refugee camp' ...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2019)

A380 said:


> And you normally do.



Nice sidestep. Who exactly is it you think has argued that this person's religion or ethniticty excuses their actions?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 16, 2019)

sheothebudworths said:


> So why does that happen? Why do those girls feel like that? Why did those girls commit to it together?


The million dollar question.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Bollocks.
> 
> There are loads of people posting here who we've all seen earnestly wish painful deaths on people for voting for mainstream political parties they don't like, or for chasing foxes on horseback. Those very same idiots are on this thread now, wringing their hands over this scumbag who pissed off to Syria for 4 years to engage in a spot of genocidal rape and torture. "Ooooh, she was only 15" ... "poor girl grew up in Bethnal Green" ... "you can't expect her to express remorse from a refugee camp" ...



Maybe you notice those posts because you're out for a fight but there have also been plenty of posts emphasising the agency of the girl.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 16, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> The million dollar question.



One we won't answer if we disregard the possibility of outside influences affecting this person's actions, as they do for everyone else on the planet. 'She's just evil' isn't really much use in preventing evil acts in future.

But apparently considering the possibility of influences or contributing factors is just reverse racism.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Who exactly is it you think has argued that this person's religion or ethniticty excuses their actions?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Maybe you notice those posts because you're out for a fight but there have also been plenty of posts emphasising the agency of the girl.


I notice those posts because they’re written in black and fucking white by half the posters active on this thread!


----------



## Riklet (Feb 16, 2019)

Interesting Twitter thread here which outlines some more details about the situation and mentions the real possibility of Kurdish prisoners being handed over to the Assad regime in the future.  This is a view shared by the Guardian's brilliant Beth McKernan who is based in Istanbul and has covered the region a lot.

Essentially, with the US pulling out in the next few months and the Erdogan regime moving into Kurdish controlled areas, the Kurdish authorities may choose to make various deals with the Assad regime in the near future.  This is likely to include arrangements with ISIS prisoners, foreign fighters and potentially other enemies of the regime.

Could or should that change views if in 3-6 months time Begun is likely to be kept in Syria but moved from the Kurish areas and potentially imprisoned/tortured/murdered there?


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> One we won't answer if we disregard the possibility of outside influences affecting this person's actions, as they do for everyone else on the planet. 'She's just evil' isn't really much use in preventing evil acts in future.
> 
> But apparently considering the possibility of influences or contributing factors is just reverse racism.


You are just trolling now aren’t you? No one could actually misconstrue so many posts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

Riklet said:


> Interesting Twitter thread here which outlines some more details about the situation and mentions the real possibility of Kurdish prisoners being handed over to the Assad regime in the future.  This is a view shared by the Guardian's brilliant Beth McKernan who is based in Istanbul and has covered the region a lot.
> 
> Essentially, with the US pulling out in the next few months and the Erdogan regime moving into Kurdish controlled areas, the Kurdish authorities may choose to make various deals with the Assad regime in the near future.  This is likely to include arrangements with ISIS prisoners, foreign fighters and potentially other enemies of the regime.
> 
> Could or should that change views if in 3-6 months time Begun is likely to be kept in Syria but moved from the Kurish areas and potentially imprisoned/tortured/murdered there?


Doesn't change my view. I agree with those who say that she should be offered help to come back by the UK govt in the form of sorting out travel documents or even fronting up money for a plane ticket, but that the UK govt is under no obligation to go out of its way to mount a rescue operation on her behalf. If not mounting a rescue operation for her results in her death, that's not on the UK govt, imo.


----------



## clicker (Feb 16, 2019)

I don't know the mileage or logistics involved here, but are there foreign aid workers helping in the refuge camp where she is at the moment? Just wondering about the likelihood of someone being offered enough money to get her to the Turkish consul? Would a newspaper stump up cash for copy?


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2019)

clicker said:


> I don't know the mileage or logistics involved here, but are there foreign aid workers helping in the refuge camp where she is at the moment? Just wondering about the likelihood of someone being offered enough money to get her to the Turkish consul? Would a newspaper stump up cash for copy?



If The Times has the resources to get a journalists in and profit from her plight, they have the resources to get her out.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2019)

Not for me - her greatest offences have been committed against Syrians, what they choose to do with her is a matter for them, and something which perhaps she should have thought a little harder about.

If she is transferred to the Assad regime then I wouldn't fall off my chair if she was used used as a propaganda tool, with heavily scripted RT interviews and the works. She might also just get shot...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> If The Times has the resources to get a journalists in and profit from her plight, they have the resources to get her out.


Do they? Without putting their own people at further risk? Maybe you know something more about such things than me.


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> If The Times has the resources to get a journalists in and profit from her plight, they have the resources to get her out.


It doesn’t really work like that.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

The Pale King said:


> "She expresses no regrets". Has it occurred to you that she is unable to speak freely?[/QUOTE ]
> 
> Have you listened to what she actually says? She gives a number of fairly clear indications that she is speaking her own mind candidly and not under duress.
> 
> ...


----------



## clicker (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> If The Times has the resources to get a journalists in and profit from her plight, they have the resources to get her out.


I don't think The Times would want to upset their readers. But I wonder if her best bet at the moment is that a private individual/company stump up the cash for her 'rescue'.  With a view to making money out of her on her return.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

This rescue business all sounds very easy. You just need a bit of cash and you can whisk her out of there.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

Isis bride with no passport in the middle of a war zone along a closed border between Kurdish controlled territory and Turkey ... all she needs is a chap from the Times to come along and rescue her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> If The Times has the resources to get a journalists in and profit from her plight, they have the resources to get her out.


They have after all all of Rupert Murdoch's news international empire to call on


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Isis bride with no passport in the middle of a war zone along a closed border between Kurdish controlled territory and Turkey ... all she needs is a chap from the Times to come along and rescue her.


The times could hire people more suited to extract her than their bumbling hacks


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

Not to speculate too wildly, but this solution might be a wee bit naive in its assessment of the situation on the ground.


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)




----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This rescue business all sounds very easy. You just need a bit of cash and you can whisk her out of there.



It's how you get camera crew in and out. As has been pointed out, it isn't a prison, just a benighted hell-hole.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

Don't get me wrong,  part of me really likes the idea. What could go wrong with News International sending a team of mercenaries, or private contractors, call them what you will, into Syria, extracting Begum from a Kurdish camp and then trafficking her across several international boarders without any travel documents.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> It's how you get camera crew in and out. As has been pointed out, it isn't a prison, just a benighted hell-hole.


I will bow to your superior knowledge. I had no idea that all it took was a bit of cash to get a camera crew in and out. I had naively assumed that it required a whole lot of paperwork up front, contacts on the ground, a fair number of hair-raising moments, no doubt a bunch of bribes even with the correct paperwork, stuff like that.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I will bow to your superior knowledge. I had no idea that all it took was a bit of cash to get a camera crew in and out. I had naively assumed that it required a whole lot of paperwork up front, contacts on the ground, a fair number of hair-raising moments, no doubt a bunch of bribes even with the correct paperwork, stuff like that.


You forgot the risk assessments, security protocols,  insurance...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> You forgot the risk assessments, security protocols,  insurance...


Even experienced journalists can and do get killed in war zones. That's just for being there to report, not trying to smuggle one of the hated, just-defeated enemies out of the country.

Sorry but some people have come out with some right old tosh on this thread.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

clicker said:


> But I wonder if her best bet at the moment is that a private individual/company stump up the cash for her 'rescue'.



An individual or private company who's really keen to help out a member of the worst rapey, murder, head-chopper, death cult on the planet. I don't reckon you'd get trampled in the rush.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

I'd like to listen in to the phonecall to the insurers:

"Hi, it's Anabelle at _Sky News _here. Can I just check if we are currently covered for people trafficking members of proscribed organisations?"


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2019)

If her family wants her back, simple answer, start crowd funding.

I am sure there's a few bleeding hearts on here that will chip in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I'd like to listen in to the phonecall to the insurers:
> 
> "Hi, it's Anabelle at _Sky News _here. Can I just check if we are currently covered for people trafficking members of proscribed organisations."


The alternative suggestion is even more absurd in many ways. Hire a bunch of mercenaries who don't give a fuck who it is they are rescuing and just want the cash, and will kill whoever gets in their way presumably? Fucking genius idea.


----------



## clicker (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> An individual or private company who's really keen to help out a member of the worst rapey, murder, head-chopper, death cult on the planet. I don't reckon you'd get trampled in the rush.


It'd only take one. I reckon there's someone somewhere who'd take a punt at the right price. The person in need of rescue hasn't shown amazing decision making skills to date, so there is possibly an equally ill advised benefactor waiting in the wings. I can't see her 'escaping' without outside help, I can't see anyone sane going in to help her. That doesn't mean it won't happen.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

Clearly the compassionate thing to do and no doubt what the people of the Middle East would want, too. All of them.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I'd like to listen in to the phonecall to the insurers:
> 
> "Hi, it's Anabelle at _Sky News _here. Can I just check if we are currently covered for people trafficking members of proscribed organisations?"



Would that be “former member” now?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

8ball said:


> Would that be “former member” now?



Why? Will that effect our premiums? We're not too sure of her current membership status, so we thought it was best to err on the side of caution.


----------



## A380 (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The alternative suggestion is even more absurd in many ways. Hire a bunch of mercenaries who don't give a fuck who it is they are rescuing and just want the cash, and will kill whoever gets in their way presumably? Fucking genius idea.


That was my plan...


----------



## keybored (Feb 16, 2019)

felixthecat said:


> Someone has just sent me this - Katie Hopkins take on the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> It's to wind me up because they know how much I despise this vile woman and every last word that comes out of her bigoted mouth




Is this some sort of joke?


----------



## editor (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This rescue business all sounds very easy. You just need a bit of cash and you can whisk her out of there.


She should be afforded whatever legal requirements are in place for British citizens abroad, but no one should be expected to put their lives at stake to bring her back home, nor should she be given any kind of go-to-the-front-of-the-queue preference, IMO.


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I will bow to your superior knowledge. I had no idea that all it took was a bit of cash to get a camera crew in and out. I had naively assumed that it required a whole lot of paperwork up front, contacts on the ground, a fair number of hair-raising moments, no doubt a bunch of bribes even with the correct paperwork, stuff like that.



That's basically it, Rupert should have a word with his mate Erdogan, who obviously smooth the border crossings, and then send  Rebekah, as she can clearly get herself out of anything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> That's basically it, Rupert should have a word with his mate Erdogan, who obviously smooth the border crossings, and then send  Rebekah, as she can clearly get herself out of anything.


Ah, the 'pretend it was all just a joke' gambit. It's ok to just admit you were talking bollocks, you know.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> [...] As has been pointed out, it isn't a prison, just a benighted hell-hole.



She's living in a warzone in a camp controlled by people with whom her associates are still at  war, having surrendered herself to them.  Whatever degree of liberty she enjoys, which remains unclear, it doesn't seem wildly speculative to consider it possible that their are some restrictions on her movements.


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ah, the 'pretend it was all just a joke' gambit. It's ok to just admit you were talking bollocks, you know.



I don't think it will happen but Murdoch clearly has the resources to get her out, and what is left of his media empire has made money out of her predicament.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She's living in a warzone in a camp controlled by people with whom her associates are still at  war, having surrendered herself to them.  Whatever degree of liberty she enjoys, which remains unclear, it doesn't seem wildly speculative to consider it possible that their are some restrictions on her movements.


It is possible she might be traded Or when the fighting is over it is possible they will take revenge & execute her.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 16, 2019)

I read somewhere that they would prefer the British state to take her off their hands, which is one of the more compelling reasons to do so.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> I don't think it will happen but Murdoch clearly has the resources to get her out ...


You don't think so?


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You don't think so?



One can live in hope. He theremay be an old softy hidden under that scaley carapace.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 16, 2019)

tbf journalists do fucking stupid things in war zones all the time, kicking chemical weapons, walking into minefields trying to cross the Iranian border to talk to the revolutionary guard driving at high speed at sentrys.  So they have probably thought of this and been advised by their security that's its a really stupid idea


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2019)

It's all theoretically doable - there are two Urbs who have been there or there abouts - but it's not straightforward and it's not safe, it's not even randomly dangerous. Getting to with 500 yards of her would, in PMC or military/int terms, be relatively easy (once you're in Iraq or Syria, getting into Iraq or Syria however is a whole different bag of chips - neither Iraq nor Turkey are overly helpful, Jordan is a possibility...), but the problem any non-state solution faces is that she doesn't have any valid travel documents. If she can get to the British Embassy in Baghdad the UK government would have to deal with her, but by-and-large the travel documents are on the other side of a hard(ish) border, and she'll need travel documents to cross that border...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 16, 2019)

People are suggesting Murdoch could or should fund her rescue? I think I must be tripping.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 16, 2019)

Why not? She really would be selling her soul to the devil then. Just think how many pages he would get out of it, for a long time.
if he kept his eyes on her, it would be less trouble for security forces.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 16, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Why? Will that effect our premiums? We're not too sure of her current membership status, so we thought it was best to err on the side of caution.



Probably best to insure for separately for the inbound and outbound leg in that case.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 16, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> People are suggesting Murdoch could or should fund her rescue?


I think he was serious too.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Why not? She really would be selling her soul to the devil then. Just think how many pages he would get out of it, for a long time.
> if he kept his eyes on her, it would be less trouble for security forces.



Really, you're equating follow up interview with a couple of Times hacks with the 24 hour physical and communications surveillance by the Secuity Service?

Is it 'put crack on your sandwiches day', and no one has told me?


----------



## alex_ (Feb 16, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I will bow to your superior knowledge. I had no idea that all it took was a bit of cash to get a camera crew in and out. I had naively assumed that it required a whole lot of paperwork up front, contacts on the ground, a fair number of hair-raising moments, no doubt a bunch of bribes even with the correct paperwork, stuff like that.



It’s easy you can just book it at sharianair.com

Alex


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Feb 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Happens all the time. One minute you're going down to the pool bar for a mojito in Bodrum, the next you wake up amidst a drone strike in Raqqa, have 2 kids, and can't escape for years.



It's a double raki mate. only twats drink Mojitos in bodrum.


----------



## keybored (Feb 16, 2019)

One of the people who went to Syria to fight against IS(IS/IL/whatever) alongside the Kurds (and barely avoided prosecution on returning) was on the radio this morning arguing that Begum should be allowed to return, face charges if need be but otherwise should have some consideration and support being she was (is) just a daft kid, really. I can't help agreeing with him.

Annoyingly I can't find a link. Google keeps throwing up hits for an interview on Good Morning Britain where another vanity soldier who calls himself Macer Gifford takes a diametrically opposed viewpoint, calling Begum an "incredibly dangerous young woman". For some reason I can't find myself agreeing with this former currency trader.


----------



## LDC (Feb 16, 2019)

keybored said:


> One of the people who went to Syria to fight against IS(IS/IL/whatever) alongside the Kurds (and barely avoided prosecution on returning) was on the radio this morning arguing that Begum should be allowed to return, face charges if need be but otherwise should have some consideration and support being she was (is) just a daft kid, really. I can't help agreeing with him.
> 
> Annoyingly I can't find a link. Google keeps throwing up hits for an interview on Good Morning Britain where another vanity soldier who calls himself Macer Gifford takes a diametrically opposed viewpoint, calling Begum an "incredibly dangerous young woman". For some reason I can't find myself agreeing with this former currency trader.



Possibly Jim Matthews, he's recently written a book too, so might be plugging that.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 16, 2019)

I heard on the Radio 5 Live someone who was recently out there saying they spoke to a Kurdish intelligence officer who had told him that foreign IS fighters have been told they  should go home & set up sleeper cells to take the fight to the West. They have had four or five years to get training in weapons & bomb making. Don't know if there is any truth in it but is chilling if it is.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Possibly Jim Matthews, he's recently written a book too, so might be plugging that.
> 
> https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fighting-M...=1550353012&sr=8-1&keywords=jim+matthews+kurd


I think he takes a harder line having seen what the ISIS state , their volunteers and passive supporters dId on an everyday basis .


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

keybored said:


> One of the people who went to Syria to fight against IS(IS/IL/whatever) alongside the Kurds (and barely avoided prosecution on returning) was on the radio this morning arguing that Begum should be allowed to return, face charges if need be but otherwise should have some consideration and support being she was (is) just a daft kid, really. I can't help agreeing with him.
> 
> Annoyingly I can't find a link. Google keeps throwing up hits for an interview on Good Morning Britain where another vanity soldier who calls himself Macer Gifford takes a diametrically opposed viewpoint, calling Begum an "incredibly dangerous young woman". For some reason I can't find myself agreeing with this former currency trader.


Don't care whether he was a former currency trader or a car trader . He put his life on the line at a time when some sections of the left were still debating whether ISIS were a product of UK/USA imperialism


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 16, 2019)

tim said:


> One can live in hope. He theremay be an old softy hidden under that scaley carapace.


The funny thing is the more stuff like this gets floated about at the top of the great toilet bowl that the media is, the more likely it is that some soft cunt will see the publicity in it do exactly that. In fact if old Katie Twatkins had sat down and had a dump this morning and thought about how she could get the most attention out of this she'd of probably written the cheque by now.

I'm holding out for a Bono. 

She is the refugee, 
I see his face
I see it staring back at me


----------



## weltweit (Feb 16, 2019)

MrSki said:


> I heard on the Radio 5 Live someone who was recently out there saying they spoke to a Kurdish intelligence officer who had told him that foreign IS fighters have been told they  should go home & set up sleeper cells to take the fight to the West. They have had four or five years to get training in weapons & bomb making. Don't know if there is any truth in it but is chilling if it is.


I don't know why you doubt it, it sounds very likely to me.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 16, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I don't know why you doubt it, it sounds very likely to me.


Sounds entirely plausible tbh . They might be beaten militarily but the risk of a terrorist attack is very likely .


----------



## marshall (Feb 16, 2019)

but surely she'll be so closely monitored when she's back that there'll be little chance of her even popping to the shops without being tracked let alone establishing a bomb making terrorist cell...


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 16, 2019)

MrSki said:


> I heard on the Radio 5 Live someone who was recently out there saying they spoke to a Kurdish intelligence officer who had told him that foreign IS fighters have been told they  should go home & set up sleeper cells to take the fight to the West. They have had four or five years to get training in weapons & bomb making. Don't know if there is any truth in it but is chilling if it is.


 How many of them are going sure boss and just go home. Doing  little or anything to fight the west just being glad to get out of there.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 16, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Sounds entirely plausible tbh . They might be beaten militarily but the risk of a terrorist attack is very likely .



Yeah, they've morphed - they've made something like a _thousand _attacks in Iraq in the last 18 months. Bombs, assassinations, all the business.

They'll be back in territory form, they have too many serious, experienced fighters and Syria and Iraq both have governments that are too inept, venal, cruel, corrupt, illegitimate and disinterested to hold the loyalty of the locals.

Five years after the Iraqi army collapsed and allowed IS to march within 20 miles of Baghdad, you can still buy the command of a Division in the Iraqi Army. $40million is the current going rate....


----------



## keybored (Feb 16, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Don't care whether he was a former currency trader or a car trader . He put his life on the line at a time when some sections of the left were still debating whether ISIS were a product of UK/USA imperialism



Amy raggamuffin who went to join ISIS put their life on the line too. I'm a bit surprised as to how this hardened veteran calls her a dangerous young woman, compared to the other guy who faced charges calling for some balance.


----------



## keybored (Feb 16, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Possibly Jim Matthews, he's recently written a book too, so might be plugging that.


Don't think it was him.


----------



## hot air baboon (Feb 16, 2019)

no-one seems very bothered about rushing in to try to rescue poor old John Cantlie


----------



## 8ball (Feb 16, 2019)

marshall said:


> but surely she'll be so closely monitored when she's back that there'll be little chance of her even popping to the shops without being tracked let alone establishing a bomb making terrorist cell...



Oh sure, with this level of media attention that will certainly be the case.
There are a lot more of them, though.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 16, 2019)

hot air baboon said:


> no-one seems very bothered about rushing in to try to rescue poor old John Cantlie



Or Michael Fish.  Or Wincie Willis.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 16, 2019)

marshall said:


> but surely she'll be so closely monitored when she's back that there'll be little chance of her even popping to the shops without being tracked let alone establishing a bomb making terrorist cell...


There are hundreds of them. They can't all be monitored 24/7.


----------



## tim (Feb 16, 2019)

MrSki said:


> I heard on the Radio 5 Live someone who was recently out there saying they spoke to a Kurdish intelligence officer who had told him that foreign IS fighters have been told they  should go home & set up sleeper cells to take the fight to the West. They have had four or five years to get training in weapons & bomb making. Don't know if there is any truth in it but is chilling if it is.



Ah the old friend of a friend of urban myth.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Ah the old friend of a friend of urban myth.


It's hardly the realm of fantasy, or am I missing something?


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Ah the old friend of a friend of urban myth.


So IS has been collapsing for a couple of years & the leaders must have known they would not hold onto any land. Got thousands of foreign fighters. Why not send them back before they get taken prisoner?
He was an invited guest on 5Live who had been in the region in the last few weeks. Why should he bullshit?


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> There are hundreds of them. They can't all be monitored 24/7.



DON'T MORAL PANIC, MR MRSKI!






They don't like it up 'em, apparently.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2019)

keybored said:


> Amy raggamuffin who went to join ISIS put their life on the line too. I'm a bit surprised as to how this hardened veteran calls her a dangerous young woman, compared to the other guy who faced charges calling for some balance.


I suppose the difference in putting life on the line is between those who went to fight fascism and those who went to join fascism. The  former went to kill to save lives, the latter went to kill to kill more. Without the antifascists winning a diffrence of opinion about what to do with the defeated enemy wouldnt be possible.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

hot air baboon said:


> no-one seems very bothered about rushing in to try to rescue poor old John Cantlie



Cantlie was/is being held prisoner at a seemingly unknown location Begum is in a  refugee camp at a known location, and seemingly free to leave.

Apparently, Cantlie may still be alive.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> DON'T MORAL PANIC, MR MRSKI!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Twat. 
I hope for your sake no-one you know becomes a victim of terrorism. Or has a fatality with a tree for that matter.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2019)

There's a witch hunt against Isis? Have I got that right?


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

I think tim doesn't see them as more of a threat to life than a tree falling on your head.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> There's a witch hunt against Isis? Have I got that right?


There's a hysteria, a moral panic.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2019)

Let he who has not laid waste to large chunks of eastern Syria and committed genocide against peaceable religious minorities cast the first stone.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> I think tim doesn't see them as more of a threat to life than a tree falling on your head.



Because that's the reality.

Two women a week are killed by their partners in England and Wales, but I don't see the same angst about domestic violence than I see on this thread, which is about a young pregnant woman who wants to return to the country of which she is a citizen


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2019)

Hysterical's an interesting turn of phrase to deploy while suggesting others are indulging in a witch hunt. I guess the main distinction I'd draw between Daesh and those accused of witchcraft back in the day would be... evidential.


----------



## Riklet (Feb 17, 2019)

Quite a few more than 2 women a week have been dying in Syria for the past 4-5 years while she's been out there tbf. And it's not like it's an either/or situation - we can still care about domestic abuse and violence in society and seek to tackle that.

Also, I dont think the very real threat of Islamic extremism in an increasingly unsettled and turbulent world/europe is just moral hysteria either.  We shouldn't downplay islamist success and their future ambitions - same with the far right.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Because that's the reality.
> 
> Two women a week are killed by their partners in England and Wales, but I don't see the same angst about domestic violence than I see on this thread, which is about a young pregnant woman who wants to return to the country of which she is a citizen


So what has the sad fact that two women a week are murdered by their partners got to do with this thread? 
I thought the thread had moved on to IS volunteers, who are willing to give their lives for their cause, returning to their countries of origin & the threat that poses?


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Hysterical's an interesting turn of phrase to deploy while suggesting others are indulging in a witch hunt. I guess the main distinction I'd draw between Daesh and those accused of witchcraft back in the day would be... evidential.



Hysterical because this is not about the crimes of Daesh but about the return of Shamima Begum a heavily pregnant 19 year old non-combatant. She wasn't actually personally responsible for what happened in the picture above.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> So what has the sad fact that two women a week are murdered by their partners got to do with this thread?
> I thought the thread had moved on to IS volunteers, who are willing to give their lives for their cause, returning to their countries of origin & the threat that poses?



It's something that is actually happening rather than something that may or might happen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Hysterical because this is not about the crimes of Daesh but about the return of Shamima Begum a heavily pregnant 19 year old non-combatant. She wasn't actually personally responsible for what happened in the picture above.


You cannot discuss Begum without also discussing the crimes of Daesh, a group of which she was a very willing part, with whom she made common cause. She bears some personal responsibility for their actions as a result of her actions. I think it's naive or disingenuous to claim otherwise. 

Thing is, saying the above then gets jumped on, and has been jumped on repeatedly on this thread, by people saying 'oh so you think she's evil and we should forget about her' or 'so you think she should be locked up forever' or 'you think she's irredeemable'. That's not helpful either. She is a young person with a bunch of abhorrent beliefs, who has acted on those beliefs, helping people doing despicable things, and got herself into a total fucking mess in the process. And she faces a difficult and potentially long route back to some kind of normality here, if she gets back. 

The rest of us are not disinterested parties in that. How she somehow returns here is our business. She made it our business by joining Islamic State. So I'd throw this back at you at this point. Do you disagree with the way that there are proscribed organisations, membership of which is itself a criminal offence? That's the crime she has clearly committed here and can and probably will be prosecuted for if she returns. If you don't disagree with that then she's a little more than just a 'heavily pregnant 19 year old non-combatant'.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Because that's the reality.
> 
> Two women a week are killed by their partners in England and Wales, but I don't see the same angst about domestic violence than I see on this thread, which is about a young pregnant woman who wants to return to the country of which she is a citizen



Whataboutery. Nobody's denying that domestic violence is a problem. If you're so concerned about that, as illustrated by your extensive posts on the matter, why not start a thread?

This situation arose because of a geopolitical situation which has seen millions displaced in hostile circumstances. Like it or not, it's one of those stories that put a human face on what, for most of the residents of a country which hasn't seen a full-on civil war in centuries, is a distant affair. The same reason that so much attention was drawn the death of Alan Kurdi (warning, link contains a photo of the dead child in question), despite him being just one of many who have perished as a result of this particular clusterfuck.

People still have reasonable grounds to be concerned, even if the actual threat to their own personal safety is minimal. Terrorist attacks are disruptive by design, with repercussions that ring out long after the dust from the actual bombs has settled and the blood has been cleaned up.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You cannot discuss Begum without also discussing the crimes of Daesh, a group of which she was a very willing part, with whom she made common cause. She bears some personal responsibility for their actions as a result of her actions. I think it's naive or disingenuous to claim otherwise.
> 
> Thing is, saying the above then gets jumped on, and has been jumped on repeatedly on this thread, by people saying 'oh so you think she's evil and we should forget about her' or 'so you think she should be locked up forever' or 'you think she's irredeemable'. That's not helpful either. She is a young person with a bunch of abhorrent beliefs, who has acted on those beliefs, helping people doing despicable things, and got herself into a total fucking mess in the process. And she faces a difficult and potentially long route back to some kind of normality here, if she gets back.
> 
> The rest of us are not disinterested parties in that. How she somehow returns here is our business. She made it our business by joining Islamic State. So I'd throw this back at you at this point. Do you disagree with the way that there are proscribed organisations, membership of which is itself a criminal offence? That's the crime she has clearly committed here and can and probably will be prosecuted for if she returns. If you don't disagree with that then she's a little more than just a 'heavily pregnant 19 year old non-combatant'.



As with anyone under suspicion, if there is evidence of her having commited a crime, she should face a proper trial in a court.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You cannot discuss Begum without also discussing the crimes of Daesh, a group of which she was a very willing part, with whom she made common cause. She bears some personal responsibility for their actions as a result of her actions. I think it's naive or disingenuous to claim otherwise.
> 
> Thing is, saying the above then gets jumped on, and has been jumped on repeatedly on this thread, by people saying 'oh so you think she's evil and we should forget about her' or 'so you think she should be locked up forever' or 'you think she's irredeemable'. That's not helpful either. She is a young person with a bunch of abhorrent beliefs, who has acted on those beliefs, helping people doing despicable things, and got herself into a total fucking mess in the process. And she faces a difficult and potentially long route back to some kind of normality here, if she gets back.
> 
> The rest of us are not disinterested parties in that. How she somehow returns here is our business. She made it our business by joining Islamic State. So I'd throw this back at you at this point. Do you disagree with the way that there are proscribed organisations, membership of which is itself a criminal offence? That's the crime she has clearly committed here and can and probably will be prosecuted for if she returns. If you don't disagree with that then she's a little more than just a 'heavily pregnant 19 year old non-combatant'.



We never really got this worked up about the non-combatant partners and children of loyalist paramilitaries, did we? How were the brutal sectarian cults they were members of different from Daesh? They killed and tortured with a similae level of brutality, didn't they?


----------



## NoXion (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> We never really got this worked up about the non-combatant partners and children of loyalist paramilitaries, did we? How were the brutal sectarian cults they were members of different from Daesh? They killed and tortured with a similae level of brutality, didn't they?



Pretty sure that as bad as the Troubles undoubtedly were, there weren't entire towns in Ireland that got attacked with nerve gas and reduced to rubble with mass artillery strikes and aerial bombardment.

You're not comparing like with like. The Syrian conflict is of a much greater magnitude and intensity than the Troubles were. ~50,000 casualties vs 367,965 to 560,000. Not to mention Turkey, Russia, the Saudis, the US etc all sticking their oars in and stirring the pot.

Against such a brutalising background it's hardly surprising that great atrocities are committed. What happened during the Troubles to match that?


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Pretty sure that as bad as the Troubles undoubtedly were, there weren't entire towns in Ireland that got attacked with nerve gas and reduced to rubble with mass artillery strikes and aerial bombardment.
> 
> You're not comparing like with like. The Syrian conflict is of a much greater magnitude and intensity than the Troubles were. ~50,000 casualties vs 367,965 to 560,000. Not to mention Turkey, Russia, the Saudis, the US etc all sticking their oars in and stirring the pot.
> 
> Against such a brutalising background it's hardly surprising that great atrocities are committed. What happened during the Troubles to match that?



The worrying on this thread has been about the domestic terror threat posed by people returning from Syria/Iraq.


----------



## marshall (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> There are hundreds of them. They can't all be monitored 24/7.



But the thread is about this one British school girl and her particular situation, isn't it  

And I really don't think that she, individually, poses a realistic threat...more likely, she presents an opportunity for us to better understand her original motivations for going in the first place. Anyway, bang on...


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Because that's the reality.
> 
> Two women a week are killed by their partners in England and Wales, but I don't see the same angst about domestic violence than I see on this thread, which is about a young pregnant woman who wants to return to the country of which she is a citizen



Well done, with this post I lost any time for what you might have to say on the subject.

And I think the fact she's a woman, 19, and pregnant are all totally irrelevant to the discussion.


----------



## Johnny Vodka (Feb 17, 2019)

I'm not saying I'd send in a rescue squad, but interesting the amount of coverage the mistakes of this perhaps naïve teenager got compared to the news yesterday that UK arms sales to the media are actually very likely illegal.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

marshall said:


> And I really don't think that she, individually, poses a realistic threat...


Really? What do you know about her that the rest of us don't? She travelled to Syria to join an exceptionally cruel, terror cult, stayed for 4 years, willingly married and procreated with one of their murderers, kept a slave, and is unrepentant about the whole gig. At an absolute minimum I'd suggest that she likely poses an ideological threat if not a far more serious one.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

Of course she's no threat, it's not like IS has trained & used female suicide bombers.

Oh, hang on a minute.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

marshall said:


> But the thread is about this one British school girl and her particular situation, isn't it
> 
> And I really don't think that she, individually, poses a realistic threat...more likely, she presents an opportunity for us to better understand her original motivations for going in the first place. Anyway, bang on...



She's not a school girl and hasn't been for 4 years.

You're not in any position to assess threat are you? You even got the facts wrong in your first sentence.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

Sadly she will be seen as an inspiration by some, those who support the aims of Daesh for instance. As well as being another rallying point for the likes of Mr T Robinson and his cohorts.
This in itself is another problem caused by her alleged foolishness.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Because that's the reality.
> 
> Two women a week are killed by their partners in England and Wales, but I don't see the same angst about domestic violence than I see on this thread, which is about a young pregnant woman who wants to return to the country of which she is a citizen



So, men are more commonly violent and therefore we shouldn't be concerned about female violence by proxy?

Young pregnant women are sometimes directly violent too, to themselves and their children. You're idealising women and motherhood in a way that doesn't help women at all.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Let he who has not laid waste to large chunks of eastern Syria and committed genocide against peaceable religious minorities cast the first stone.


That makes it difficult for the British state as they/wewe ha laid waste to Iraq and parts of Syria, including Raqqa, whose trapped people we liberated by dropping bombs on thrm. Of course which they/we have caused countless deaths, we were fairly indiscriminate about the faith of those we killed. Some of those we support and arm in the region kill more selectively.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

Mad dogs latest squeeze wasn't like to strap on a suicide vest or just get stabby in a supermarket


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> That makes it difficult for the British state as they/wewe ha laid waste to Iraq and parts of Syria, including Raqqa, whose trapped people we liberated by dropping bombs on thrm. Of course which they/we have caused countless deaths, we were fairly indiscriminate about the faith of those we killed. Some of those we support and arm in the region kill more selectively.



Is there hypocrisy in monstering an individual when our state is responsible for war and destruction? Yes, but nobody here is supporting the actions of the British state, I don't think. 

You could say it's easier to hate one person, especially a young brown woman who doesn't fit with an idea (whose idea?) of how young women should be, rather than take responsibility for our own failings, individual and collective. I'd agree with that. Our view of her may be distorted, it is bound to be distorted, she's become the focus for all sorts of strong feeling, but making her 'innocent' is just as distorting as making her a monster, neither help us see reality.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Is there hypocrisy in monstering an individual when our state is responsible for war and destruction? Yes, but nobody here is supporting the actions of the British state, I don't think.
> 
> You could say it's easier to hate one person, especially a young brown woman who doesn't fit with an idea (whose idea?) of how young women should be, rather than take responsibility for our own failings, individual and collective. I'd agree with that. Our view of her may be distorted, it is bound to be distorted, she's become the focus for all sorts of strong feeling, but making her 'innocent' is just as distorting as making her a monster, neither help us see reality.


Until convicted she remains innocent, and for that to change she has to return to the UK.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Until convicted she remains innocent, and for that to change she has to return to the UK.



I'm sure you understood that I wasn't talking in a legal sense.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> just get stabby in a supermarket


Not for political reasons anyway. . .


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> DON'T MORAL PANIC, MR MRSKI!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have, for some time, been wondering if the concept of the moral panic is obsolete. . .


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Until convicted she remains innocent...


Only if you really want to take the piss out of the word "innocent" and stretch it to its legal limit. She has admitted what she's done here and said she doesn't regret it.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Only if you really want to take the piss out of the word "innocent" and stretch it to its legal limit. She has admitted what she's done here and said she doesn't regret it.


Not really taking the piss to use the word in a widely accepted form; doesn't this go to heart of the argument for her return to the UK?


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Is there hypocrisy in monstering an individual when our state is responsible for war and destruction? Yes, but nobody here is supporting the actions of the British state, I don't think.
> 
> You could say it's easier to hate one person, especially a young brown woman who doesn't fit with an idea (whose idea?) of how young women should be, rather than take responsibility for our own failings, individual and collective. I'd agree with that. Our view of her may be distorted, it is bound to be distorted, she's become the focus for all sorts of strong feeling, but making her 'innocent' is just as distorting as making her a monster, neither help us see reality.



Exactly, I've not consciously sought to portray her as the Madonna, but I have tried to challenge the whoring of her.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

Idris2002 said:


> I have, for some time, been wondering if the concept of the moral panic is obsolete. . .




We still keep on having them, so probably not.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ... doesn't this go to heart of the argument for her return to the UK?


Well no. The argument about her return is whether or not the state should facilitate it, given that she has very publicly told us exactly what she's done (travel 2000 miles to join a proscibed cult who were raping and murdering their way across another country).


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Only if you really want to take the piss out of the word "innocent" and stretch it to its legal limit. She has admitted what she's done here and said she doesn't regret it.


She’s innocent in much the same way that Schrödinger’s cat is still alive.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> We still keep.on having them, so probably not.


Yet the media landscape is very different today, compared to how it was when Stanley Cohen came up with the idea in 1972.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> The worrying on this thread has been about the domestic terror threat posed by people returning from Syria/Iraq.



Exactly, and in my other post I pointed out how people have good reason to be concerned, even if the actual threat to their own personal safety is minimal. Just because the chances of a particular individual being struck by lightning are lottery odds, doesn't mean that building lightning conductors is pointless. People win the lottery (and get struck by lightning) on a regular basis.

Terrorism isn't just about the people who get hurt and killed in the attacks. The events in New York on the 11th September 2001 had an impact that went well beyond just the 3000-odd people who died that day.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not really taking the piss to use the word in a widely accepted form; doesn't this go to heart of the argument for her return to the UK?



And yet it was a reply my post in which I'd put it in quotes and was clearly describing a social process in which ideas about innocence are created in relation to 'femininity'. So not using it in the legal sense at all.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well no. The argument about her return is whether or not the state should facilitate it, given that she has very publicly told us exactly what she's done (travel 2000 miles to join a proscibed cult who were raping and murdering their way across another country).


Well states do extradite people accused of serious crime.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> And yet it was a reply my post in which I'd put it in quotes and was clearly describing a social process in which ideas about innocence are created in relation to 'femininity'. So not using it in the legal sense at all.


I almost certainly misread your post and meaning; my apologies.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Well states do extradite people accused of serious crime.


When they're accused of committing a crime in the country in which they are wanted to stand trial. You're really reaching here.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> When they're accused of committing a crime in the country in which they are wanted to stand trial. You're really reaching here.


Not really; I thought the point was that a UK national (allegedly) going to fight for a terrorist organisation like ISIS was a crime in the eyes of the UK state.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Not really; I thought the point was that a UK national (allegedly) going to fight for a terrorist organisation like ISIS was a crime in the eyes of the UK state.


Oh, I see what you mean. I think the bulk of the crimes she's committed are probably against Syrians, nothwithstanding that joining IS is a criminal act here. The argument though, isn't about her legal guilt but her moral code and the moral obligations of the British state.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

As far as I know she's being held in an area of Syria that is under the control of the PYD. What the balance between being a refugee camp where you can come and go and a detention centre with restricted in/out where she is I have no idea but it wouldn't be hard to find out. But either way formal extradition is a non-starter. Some official deal with the PYD would be entirely within the realms of the possible, as would an un/semi-official visit to take her documents and money to facilitate her leaving to get somewhere from where she can leave the entire area. Not easy but possible.

But I think the main question being discussed is whether the British State starts that process to help her get back, nobody here has argued she should be refused entry to the UK should she somehow get to the point where she turns up to board a flight or arrives at the border, nor that she should be stripped of her citizenship.

And as I have made clear my answer to whether she gets help now is a very firm no. If she manages to turn up here somehow then we're in a very different position.

I'd be mildly amused if she ended up being part of a prisoner swap with the Assad regime for some Kurdish/SDF prisoners.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

Yes, I know I might get picked up by some that feel this is mocking someone’s age and heritage .



But then, it’s only Prince Philip...


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> I almost certainly misread your post and meaning; my apologies.



No worries, at least you read it


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, I see what you mean. I think the bulk of the crimes she's committed are probably against Syrians, nothwithstanding that joining IS is a criminal act here. The argument though, isn't about her legal guilt but her moral code and the moral obligations of the British state.


Since when did state jurisdictions operate on the basis of moral obligations?  There is/are precedents to the Begum case:


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

just nobody who could do that wants to do it.
a she's a potential threat to civilians in the UK
b she joined daesh and doesn't seen terribly apologetic about it 
c public are less than sympathetic
d its difficult and expensive


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Exactly, I've not consciously sought to portray her as the Madonna, but I have tried to challenge the whoring of her.



No one here has argued that she's a whore rather that she's a willing accessory to murder, slavery, and genocide.

Is this train of argument a bit like the 'but, thicky racists.....' as seen on the brexit threads?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> just nobody who could do that wants to do it.
> a she's a potential threat to civilians in the UK
> b she joined daesh and doesn't seen terribly apologetic about it
> c public are less than sympathetic
> d its difficult and expensive


Up to the state, innit?
It's their call about whether or not they seek to effect her return to face justice.
Sounds like they don't want to atm meaning that she remains a legally innocent UK national living as a displaced person/'refugee' in Syria.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> No one here has argued that she's a whore rather that she's a willing accessory to murder, slavery, and genocide.
> 
> Is this train of argument a bit like the 'but, thicky racists.....' as seen on the brexit threads?



It's not so black and white as all that, these processes are subtle, they effect us all.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Since when did state jurisdictions operate on the basis of moral obligations?  There is/are precedents to the Begum case:
> 
> View attachment 162133


Well if you want to argue that the state is _legally_ obliged to go out and get her, then you're on even more shaky ground.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Sounds like they don't want to atm meaning that she remains a legally innocent UK national living as a displaced person/'refugee' in Syria.


Oh dear, how sad, what a shame, never mind.


----------



## mystic pyjamas (Feb 17, 2019)

Nigel Farage (yes I know) on LBC radio is saying she has given birth.
Now The shit really  has hit the fan.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well if you want to argue that the state is _legally_ obliged to go out and get her, then you're on even more shaky ground.


'Shaky ground' doesn't come into it at all; the state decides whether or not it wants to effect Begum's return and its obligations to her are the same as any other UK national.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Oh dear, how sad, what a shame, never mind.


Not sure what point you're making tbh


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

Well she’s had the baby according to Sky News.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Well she’s had the baby according to Sky News.



Makes not a jot of difference to my position tbh. Although if I was a betting person I'd say she'll end up back in the UK within the year.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Ex] but I have tried to challenge the whoring of her.


...

I’ve missed those posts. Please link to a couple where this ‘whoring’ has been done.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 17, 2019)

mystic pyjamas said:


> Nigel Farage (yes I know) on LBC radio is saying she has given birth.
> Now The shit really  has hit the fan.



Shit hits the fan every time Farage goes on air, tbh


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ... its obligations to her are the same as any other UK national.


Nonsense.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense.


Go on...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Exactly, I've not consciously sought to portray her as the Madonna, but I have tried to challenge the whoring of her.


If you think others have been whoring her then you have been badly misunderstanding. Fwiw your posts come across like you are minimising her responsibility because she's *only* a girl who *only* got married and had children.


----------



## cyril_smear (Feb 17, 2019)

I haven't read the whole thread but has this woman committed any kind of criminal offence?


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

cyril_smear said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but has this woman committed any kind of criminal offence?


Impossible to say until she's tried.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Impossible to say until she's tried.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

cyril_smear said:


> I haven't read the whole thread but has this woman committed any kind of criminal offence?



She has committed two in the UK - fraudulent use of a passport (she used her sisters to travel), and leaving the UK to join IS. Both are serious criminal offenses in the UK.

Her much more serious offences were commited in Syria. Slavery for a start...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Impossible to say until she's tried.


If I see you shoot Tim in the head, then you tell everyone “I just shot Tim in the head”, would you be not guilty until you were tried?


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Impossible to say until she's tried.



Yes, technically, absent any conviction she's innocent.  Like, say, Jimmy Savile and Jack The Ripper.


----------



## clicker (Feb 17, 2019)

What nationality is the baby ? Was the father Dutch and if so, can she claim any rights to living there?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, technically, absent any conviction she's innocent.  Like, say, Jimmy Savile and Jack The Ripper.



I think you missed out 'in law', clearly she, Jimmy Savile and Jack The Ripper are/were not innocent.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> If I see you shoot Tim in the head, then you tell everyone “I just shot Tim in the head”, would you be not guilty until you were tried?


As we've established, it's up to the UK state to decide whether or not they want to extradite, arrest, try and (possibly) convict Begum. Similarly if she makes her way back under her own steam.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

And careful here folks. We should watch what we say lest we prejudice a future trial.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, technically, absent any conviction she's innocent.  Like, say, Jimmy Savile and Jack The Ripper.


That was the question posed:


> has this woman committed any kind of criminal offence?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> That was the question posed:


To which the answer is 'yes', by her own admission.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> That was the question posed:



I know. I'm agreeing with you that, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, she hasn't committed a crime. But pointing out that that legal fiction can lead to absurdity.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To which the answer is 'yes', by her own admission.


Her reported/broadcast comments from the context of the Syrian DP camp might suggest that, but that's not how the state judicial system works, is it?
The alleged offence(s) will remain unproven until or unless she faces trial in a UK court.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> I know. I'm agreeing with you that, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, she hasn't committed a crime. But pointing out that that legal fiction can lead to absurdity.


None of us have any proof, do we?


----------



## cyril_smear (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Her much more serious offences were commited in Syria. Slavery for a start...



Wouldn't that be up to the Syrians to prosecute.

Looks like she could be in deep dog doo then if she were to return to the UK... For the passport thing at least.


----------



## cyril_smear (Feb 17, 2019)

Would going and marrying an IS member be regarded as supporting a terrorist organisation or whatever the offence is called here in England and Wales.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> None of us have any proof, do we?



We all have evidence which any of us we can weigh to assess whether or not we consider her guilty. But, of course, until a court convicts her, she is innocent in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ... it's up to the UK state to decide whether or not they want to extradite, arrest, try and (possibly) convict Begum.


Well if you agree that, great. So far the state seems to be saying that we're not going to lift a finger to help her and if she arrives in the UK under her own steam she'll be arrested and possibly prosecuted. All of which is perfectly fine by me.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

brogdale said:


> ..The alleged offence(s) will remain unproven until or unless she faces trial in a UK court.



Why do you take the view that she can only be tried by a UK court?

She's in Syria, the most serious crimes she's accused of - and admits to - occured in Syria and were committed against Syrians. 

I rather doubt that if someone was in the UK, accused of murder in the UK, you'd argue that they should first be extradited to Italy to face car theft charges...


----------



## cyril_smear (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> She's in Syria, the most serious crimes she's accused of - and admits to - occured in Syria and were committed against



Probably why she wants to come back to the UK and face a few years I'm jail rather than being hanged in Syria... some martyr eh.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

cyril_smear said:


> Would going and marrying an IS member be regarded as supporting a terrorist organisation or whatever the offence is called here in England and Wales.



The marrying is broadly irrelevant, going there to live under the IS Caliphate/Jurisdiction is considered to fall within 'supporting' a proscribed organisation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

cyril_smear said:


> Would going and marrying an IS member be regarded as supporting a terrorist organisation or whatever the offence is called here in England and Wales.


Yes


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Trump is now weighing in to demand that Britain and other European countries to "take back" ISIS fighters, which probably makes cases like Shamima Begum a bit more of an actual news story. 

Trump urges European allies to take back hundreds of ISIS fighters captured in Syria

Although for what it's worth, while I don't think acting like these people are not our problem is much of a starting point, and certainly don't think making them stateless is a solution, I also don't think we should be hugely receptive to Trump demanding we put them all in UK prisons.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well if you agree that, great. So far the state seems to be saying that we're not going to lift a finger to help her and if she arrives in the UK under her own steam she'll be arrested and possibly prosecuted. All of which is perfectly fine by me.


Others with more regional knowledge will doubtless be able to comment, but I suspect that a major problem for the UK state is deciding on the degree of engagement with those holding the 20 or so UK nationals reported to be held in the displaced persons camps of DFNS. Extradition obviously presupposes some form of mutual state recognition.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Exactly, I've not consciously sought to portray her as the Madonna, but I have tried to challenge the whoring of her.





A380 said:


> ...
> 
> I’ve missed those posts. Please link to a couple where this ‘whoring’ has been done.



Just had a quick second whiz though this thread after Teumps pronouncement. tim I still have failed to find any that engage in the ‘whoring’ of this woman though?


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

A380 said:


> ...
> 
> I’ve missed those posts. Please link to a couple where this ‘whoring’ has been done.



You could start with gentlegreen and his "Jihadi factory" comment. 

It's a reference to the Madonna/Whore dichotomy: the idea that women are either virginally pure or totally depraved.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> You could start with gentlegreen and his "Jihadi factory" comment.
> 
> It's a reference to the Madonna/Whore dichotomy: the idea that women are either virginally pure or totally depraved.


Oh I see, it’s you white knighting.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> You could start with gentlegreen and his "Jihadi factory" comment.
> 
> It's a reference to the Madonna/Whore dichotomy: the idea that women are either virginally pure or totally depraved.


He didn't call her a whore though and he only took stick for that because of the way he formed it. If we're honest these women are treated _exactly_ as baby production facilities (factories) by IS. Their sole purpose is to provide sexual services to the murderers, do the washing and cooking, and to produce babies. Or do you reckon it's a love thing?

If anyone's treating the women as "whores" it's IS. Certainly nobody on this thread.


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2019)

It's bollocks. Tim's exaggerating for trolling fun I suspect. I mean, I dont' believe he's actually as patronising and wishy woshy as taking all his posts at face value might suggest.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

gentlegreen

It was that almost as much as being unfazed by heads in bins.
"Had two die on me, let's immediately produce another baby jihadist..."

Thursday at 1:31 PM
A veritable jihadist factory.
I hope this child gets taken into care.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> gentlegreen
> 
> Here
> https://www.urban75.net/forums/members/gentlegreen.1195/



??


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ??


Any clearer above now


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2019)

Terrible, appalling, some brusk language. Presumably you're aware of how the voluntary joining of Daesh was sold to women? Would you like some smelling salts?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> gentlegreen
> 
> It was that almost as much as being unfazed by heads in bins.
> "Had two die on me, let's immediately produce another baby jihadist..."
> ...





tim said:


> Any clearer above now



To be clear, do you believe that marrying an IS fighter and having babies was _not _part of the 'advert' from IS, and to which this person replied in the affirmative?

Do you then believe that given the decisions - not just the one decision she made at 15 - she's made since going to IS, and the attitudes she displays _on film, _do not make her, at the least, someone you won't be leaving your children with?


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Trump is now weighing in to demand that Britain and other European countries to "take back" ISIS fighters, which probably makes cases like Shamima Begum a bit more of an actual news story.
> 
> Trump urges European allies to take back hundreds of ISIS fighters captured in Syria
> 
> Although for what it's worth, while I don't think acting like these people are not our problem is much of a starting point, and certainly don't think making them stateless is a solution, I also don't think we should be hugely receptive to Trump demanding we put them all in UK prisons.



Perhaps they should all be handed over to the authorities in those countries they have committed the atrocities in.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> You could start with gentlegreen and his "Jihadi factory" comment.
> 
> It's a reference to the Madonna/Whore dichotomy: the idea that women are either virginally pure or totally depraved.


As far as I can tell, it is only you who seems obsessed with 'whores' & 'sluts'. 

I don't think gentlegreen comments were out of order as this was part of the deal in producing future fighters for the cause.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> He didn't call her a whore though and he only took stick for that because of the way he formed it. If we're honest these women are treated _exactly_ as baby production facilities (factories) by IS. Their sole purpose is to provide sexual services for the murderers, do the washing and cooking, and to produce babies. Or do you reckon it's a love thing?
> 
> If anyone's treating the women as "whores" it's IS. Certainly nobody on this thread.


exactly. This is yet another bizarre turn on a frankly bizarre thread.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Perhaps they should all be handed over to the authorities in those countries they have committed the atrocities in.



Aren't these the same authorities that set up rape dungeons for dissidents in their prisons? In which case I'm skeptical that they would receive a fair hearing.

It's an absolute fucking mess, all round.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Aren't these the same authorities that set up rape dungeons for dissidents in their prisons? In which case I'm skeptical that they would receive a fair hearing.
> 
> It's an absolute fucking mess, all round.



Yes it’s a savage, vicious,  never ending circle of mayhem, murder and terror from all sides. It’s futile trying to resolve it. It will all just roll on to another location.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> To be clear, do you believe that marrying an IS fighter and having babies was _not _part of the 'advert' from IS, and to which this person replied in the affirmative?
> 
> Do you then believe that given the decisions - not just the one decision she made at 15 - she's made since going to IS, and the attitudes she displays _on film, _do not make her, at the least, someone you won't be leaving your children with?



That doesn't have anything to do with what tim is saying. He's not saying that she isn't a potential danger or that anyone should leave their kids with her. 

The point is that in the context of an issue like this comments about women being reproductive 'factories', or insisting on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that 'she knew what she was getting in to', or making comparisons with parents who are drug users, or denigrating comments about how many kids she had, are not relevant to the issue and really just suggest some posters here have some odd (putting it kindly) attitudes to women.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

tim, you're really reaching with this idea that anyone's 'slut-shaming' her; whilst gentlegreen's comments may have been factually inaccurate and somewhat crass, recognising that a big part of the role of jihadi bride is to produce offspring isn't anything like calling her a 'whore'.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Perhaps they should all be handed over to the authorities in those countries they have committed the atrocities in.



There either aren't any authorities - we're talking about disintegrating and failed states here - that's the point.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> As far as I can tell, it is only you who seems obsessed with 'whores' & 'sluts'.
> 
> I don't think gentlegreen comments were out of order as this was part of the deal in producing future fighters for the cause.



You don't think referring to her womb as a factory was out of order?


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> tim, you're really reaching with this idea that anyone's 'slut-shaming' her; whilst gentlegreen's comments may have been factually inaccurate and somewhat crass, recognising that a big part of the role of jihadi bride is to produce offspring isn't anything like calling her a 'whore'.



He sees her as an unredeemable fallen woman


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> There either aren't any authorities - we're talking about disintegrating and failed states here - that's the point.



Oh thanks for pointing that out to me. I live in a cave!


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> He sees her as an unredeemable fallen woman


Deffo trolling now...


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't think referring to her womb as a factory was out of order?



I read that post, as him commenting on how IS sees their brides, not how he does, that's a big difference.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Oh thanks for pointing that out to me. I live in a cave!



If you're aware there aren't any authorities then why did you post with that suggestion?


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> He sees her as an unredeemable fallen woman



I get the impression he sees her as irredeemable, but the obsession with her being 'fallen' (generally understood to refer to promiscousness) seems to be all you own!  Suggesting a part of her role in supporting IS was to produce children is quite different from suggesting she's promiscuous.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> He sees her as an unredeemable fallen woman



Put your crystal ball away, you can't read minds.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I read that post, as him commenting on how IS sees their brides, not how he does, that's a big difference.



I think that's a very charitable interpretation - the comment was aimed at the number of children she had had, he made no mention at all of how IS sees/grooms/recruits young women, the focus was all on her as an individual.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you're aware there aren't any authorities then why did you post with that suggestion?



Because I don’t want them back here.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Perhaps they should all be handed over to the authorities in those countries they have committed the atrocities in.



Do you mean the resurgent Assad regime that had been torturing raping and slaughtering its perceived opponents and their children for decades. Albeit in the name of a secular ideology: not that the latter stopped in from having a clear sectarian bias


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Put your crystal ball away, you can't read minds.


I can read his misogynistic posts.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think that's a very charitable interpretation - the comment was aimed at the number of children she had had, he made no mention at all of how IS sees/grooms/recruits young women, the focus was all on her as an individual.





Based on the fact that she joined IS to become a bride of a fighter, and in order to be used by IS to produce new fighters.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> There either aren't any authorities - we're talking about disintegrating and failed states here - that's the point.


Actually, despite what Turrkey and Syria say ‘Kurdistan’ seem to be making a half decent stab at it, and aren’t completely shit in their treatment of  women. I know they wouldn’t last more than a week without the West’s air power and I imagine there are some quite outrageous costs from us to keep that in place but I’m not sure they’re  failing. Likewise Syria since we bailed out on the Syrian people and the Russians and Iranians started proping  the regime up isn’t really a failed state anymore. Fucking awful dictatorship but not a failed state....


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Do you mean the resurgent Assad regime that had been torturing raping and slaughtering its perceived opponents and their children for decades. Albeit in the name of a secular ideology: not that the latter stopped in from having a clear sectarian bias



Something like that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you're aware there aren't any authorities then why did you post with that suggestion?



Iraq is the only actual state authority in the region, when ISIS fighters are captured there they are tried and given death sentences and put on death row. Very few sentences have been carried out as far as I can tell, but this is the reason so many wish to surrender in Syria.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Because I don’t want them back here.



What do you want then? For her to be stripped off British citizenship?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Based on the fact that she joined IS to become a bride of a fighter, and in order to be used by IS to produce new fighters.



So that makes the factory comment alright as far as you're concerned?


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do you want then? For her to be stripped off British citizenship?



Her back here and prosecuted if needed. Those who have been trained and have been actively murdering and raping their way around the region can fucking rot.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

Is P&P always like this?

I really really should come here more often.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do you want then? For her to be stripped off British citizenship?



For the moment there are other alternatives that have been mentioned that don't involve her coming back here or being stripped of UK citizenship, she stays where she is for example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> insisting on the basis of no evidence whatsoever that 'she knew what she was getting in to'


She took her sister's passport and smuggled herself into Syria to offer herself to IS and request an IS fighter to marry. She herself has said this. The idea that she is some innocent caught up by events is untenable.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Something like that.



Rape and torture in the cause of Baathism: good.

Rape and torture in the name of Islam: bad. 

Ba'athism - Wikipedia

Is that a reasonable summary of your attitude?


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

A380 said:


> Actually, despite what Turrkey and Syria say ‘Kurdistan’ seem to be making a half decent stab at it, and aren’t completely shit in their treatment of  women. I know they wouldn’t last more than a week without the West’s air power and I imagine there are some quite outrageous costs from us to keep that in place but I’m not sure they’re  failing. Likewise Syria since we bailed out on the Syrian people and the Russians and Iranians started proping  the regime up isn’t really a failed state anymore. Fucking awful dictatorship but not a failed state....



The DFNS (Rojava) are also having a go at constructing a different type of society, and one that (relevant to this discussion) is trying to have a different perspective on the traditional justice/legal system.

Take with a pinch of realist salt but...

The New Justice System in Rojava

Rojava an oasis of progress in Syria


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

To be honest I really couldn’t give two fucks about any of it anymore.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't think referring to her womb as a factory was out of order?



Genuinely, how would you describe what IS said they wanted, and the myriad statements from women from all over Europe who went to the IS said that's what they were going there to do?

IS specifically and overtly recruited women and girls with a vista of marrying an IS fighter and having lots of babies to populate the caliphate.

You may not like the term, but it's the idea that IS put forward, and the idea that this young woman agreed with. Personally, I think the term isn't inaccurate given that the babies were being made _for a specific purpose, _rather than being the result of when a mummy jihadist and a daddy jihadist love each other very much and have a special mummy and daddy jihadi cuddle.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do you want then? For her to be stripped off British citizenship?



Yes.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

tbf if the Kurds Iraqis Syrians or anyone shot the fighters and left them at the side of the road it would be perfectly legal geneva convention doesn't apply and if you decide to scribble all over the rules of war reciprocity is a thing.
 children and non-combatants we have to eventually bring back but there's no rush or reason to spend taxpayers money to do it.
 family can always crowdfund for it.
 unaccompanied children we should


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> Her back here and prosecuted if needed. Those who have been trained and have been actively murdering and raping their way around the region can fucking rot.



Well that's a bit confusing, given you just said you don't want her back here.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So that makes the factory comment alright as far as you're concerned?



It's not a term I would have used, but it's not unreasonable under the circumstances, as per kebabking's post just above this one.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> tbf if the Kurds Iraqis Syrians or anyone shot the fighters and left them at the side of the road it would be perfectly legal geneva convention doesn't apply



You were peeling potatoes the day of that lecture in training right?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She took her sister's passport and smuggled herself into Syria to offer herself to IS and request an IS fighter to marry. She herself has said this. The idea that she is some innocent caught up by events is untenable.



She left the country with a fake passport? Oh my god. I am so morally outraged right now. Won't somebody think of the children etc


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> She left the country with a fake passport? Oh my god. I am so morally outraged right now. Won't somebody think of the children etc


Don't be a fucking cunt. She joined IS ffs. What the fuck is wrong with you on this?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

Put another way, gentlegreen is innocent, compared to her.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Genuinely, how would you describe what IS said they wanted, and the myriad statements from women from all over Europe who went to the IS said that's what they were going there to do?
> 
> IS specifically and overtly recruited women and girls with a vista of marrying an IS fighter and having lots of babies to populate the caliphate.
> 
> You may not like the term, but it's the idea that IS put forward, and the idea that this young woman agreed with. Personally, I think the term isn't inaccurate given that the babies were being made _for a specific purpose, _rather than being the result of when a mummy jihadis and a daddy love each other very much and have a special mummy and daddy cuddle.



I might well say that Daesh sees women as reproductive machines who exist for the purpose of producing children. No issue with that. Although that doesn't make them particularly exceptional - the capitalist system of production sees women first and foremost as reproductive machines who exist for the purpose of producing children. 

What I wouldn't do is call a women a 'factory' myself. Because that's a different thing.


----------



## Sue (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Rape and torture in the cause of Baathism: good.
> 
> Rape and torture in the name of Islam: bad.
> 
> ...



No one has said or suggested rape and torture are good. Why are you saying they have?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Yes.



Do you foresee any potential dangers associated with your support for this Tory govt to strip someone of their citizenship?


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> tbf if the Kurds Iraqis Syrians or anyone shot the fighters and left them at the side of the road it would be perfectly legal geneva convention doesn't apply and if you decide to scribble all over the rules of war reciprocity is a thing.
> children and non-combatants we have to eventually bring back but there's no rush or reason to spend taxpayers money to do it.
> family can always crowdfund for it.
> unaccompanied children we should


Presumably the men and women in shipping containers at  Waddington are also doing this legally, just slightly less up close and personal.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I might well say that Daesh sees women as reproductive machines who exist for the purpose of producing children. No issue with that. Although that doesn't make them particularly exceptional - the capitalist system of production sees women first and foremost as reproductive machines who exist for the purpose of producing children.
> 
> What I wouldn't do is call a women a 'factory' myself. Because that's a different thing.


Absolutely this.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sue said:


> No one has said or suggested rape and torture are good. Why are you saying they have?



Some people have suggested it would be good if British citizens who joined Daesh were dealt with by the Iraqi authorities because it's likely they would be raped and tortured.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Don't be a fucking cunt. She joined IS ffs. What the fuck is wrong with you on this?



What's your problem? That I'm ambivalent about passport fraud?


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Well that's a bit confusing, given you just said you don't want her back here.



The 800 prisoners Trump is on about, not her. Stop skim reading then going off half cocked. It isn’t your usual style.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Do you foresee any potential dangers associated with your support for this Tory govt to strip someone of their citizenship?



I see potential dangers in most things, but if I was paralyzed by every potential danger inherent in achieving anything I'd starve to death across the road from a supermarket.

I'd have no problem with a Corbyn government removing her British citizenship - I truth I'd have no problem with a Corbyn government throwing her put the back of a plane 5,000 feet over the Atlantic...


----------



## Sue (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Some people have suggested it would be good if British citizens who joined Daesh were dealt with by the Iraqi authorities because it's likely they would be raped and tortured.


Are they? I must've missed that. Feel free to quote the relevant posts.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do you want then? For her to be stripped off British citizenship?


Fine by me. And if this was a white, male, nazi, Christian; a tory; or whoever is the current leftie hate figure du jour, it would probably be fine by you and most of the others on this thread too.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

Will she be back in the UK before this thread reaches 100 pages though? That's the real question.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Some people have suggested it would be good if British citizens who joined Daesh were dealt with by the Iraqi authorities because it's likely they would be raped and tortured.



Congratulations in joining Tim Nice, but Dim, in making shit up.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Do you foresee any potential dangers associated with your support for this Tory govt to strip someone of their citizenship?


But they won’t. I don’t think anyone here has suggested that if she gets to the uk or a consulate she wouldn’t   allowed in- despite the wishful thinking of some on other sites- she’d also be tried for at least two offences she’s admitted  to in her interview. And hopefully a few more, I imagine there are a few state and more non-state actors, probably some with a women’s rights underpinning desperately trying to get testimony from the various slaves and other victims of IS in a hope ( probably mostly forlorn) of getting some charges to stick somewhere. Personally I’d love to see this woman and other IS members from Britain in the dock at the Bailey forced to listen to the testimony of Yazidi women and men, perhaps backed up by drone footage and people who only have one letter names. Probably won’t happen  but would be fucking great if it did.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> You were peeling potatoes the day of that lecture in training right?



IS aren't members of any recognized armed forces have taken part in rape and torture murder of prisoners big boys rules, apply and you make sure no helmet cams are switched on.  If you don't like it shouldn't have joined an organization that thought prisoner meant somebody I can murder for fun.
dumped at the side of the road neck shot seems eminently sensible anyone asks they were reaching for a suicide belt.
 same thing happened to a lot of  SS prisoners get a reputation for murdering prisoners don't get to be passed up the line.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> She left the country with a fake passport? Oh my god. I am so morally outraged right now. Won't somebody think of the children etc


You're an idiot.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

Sue said:


> No one has said or suggested rape and torture are good. Why are you saying they have?


↑
_Perhaps they should all be handed over to the authorities in those countries they have committed the atrocities in._


Do you mean the resurgent Assad regime that had been torturing raping and slaughtering its perceived opponents and their children for decades? Albeit in the name of a secular ideology: not that the latter stopped in from having a clear sectarian bias

_Something like that_


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't think referring to her womb as a factory was out of order?


No not in the context. Maybe he should have said 'Means of production' but in context it is not out of order.


----------



## Sue (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> ↑
> _Perhaps they should all be handed over to the authorities in those countries they have committed the atrocities in._
> 
> 
> ...


I'm still failing to see the suggestion that rape and torture are good. I think we can all acknowledge though that there are no easy or good solutions to any of this.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> ↑
> _Perhaps they should all be handed over to the authorities in those countries they have committed the atrocities in._
> 
> 
> ...


If a foreign national commits a crime in the UK & flees, then it would be expected to apply for extradition back to the UK to be tried where the crime was committed. Why not in these cases?


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> If a foreign national commits a crime in the UK & flees, then it would be expected to apply for extradition back to the UK to be tried where the crime was committed. Why not in these cases?


Because the people asking for extradition are not white and so shouldn’t be expected to have a proper justice system like ours I think. I’m sure Tim will phrase it slightly differently but I think that’s the basis of his arguments...


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 17, 2019)

I was NOT being intentionally misogynistic.
While she didn't chop off any heads like her male peers, she was complicit.
To be perfectly honest I don't fully understand why IS fighters "_*need" *_wives and children - except perhaps with a view to the future.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> If a foreign national commits a crime in the UK & flees, then it would be expected to apply for extradition back to the UK to be tried where the crime was committed. Why not in these cases?



Have you read anything in this thread and the situation on the ground where she is? She's not being held by a recognized State with the infrastructure to do this through. FFS what do you think has been going on in Syria?


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> If a foreign national commits a crime in the UK & flees, then it would be expected to apply for extradition back to the UK to be tried where the crime was committed. Why not in these cases?



Because, there is no guarantee of a fair trial under the Assad regime and they rape, torture and kill people, just like Daesh do. British government policy is not to extradite in such circumstances


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> No not in the context. Maybe he should have said 'Means of production' but in context it is not out of order.


tbh I think some people here are struggling to get their heads around IS ideology, which isn't so surprising as it is _so different_ from the way any of us here think. Particularly given how she herself will have seen her womb, her primary role in furthering the cause being the production of children - particularly boys, who will then become fighters themselves as they build their new society. This is an idealistic cause, one that aspires to a (twisted) utopian transformation of the whole world. She offered up her body to that cause. And she did so willingly. It is distasteful to write it, but there is no non-distasteful way to write it that doesn't miss an important aspect of what it is.


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

A380 said:


> Because the people asking for extradition are not white and so shouldn’t be expected to have a proper justice system like ours I think. I’m sure Tim will phrase it slightly differently but I think that’s the basis of his arguments...




Nobody currently is asking for extradition. Please keep up! As she is not in the  UK we could not extradite her anyway. As far as the Assad government's justice system goes, if you've got a strong stomach, look at the pictures in the link below, and decide for yourself, if you think that they treat detainees well.

assad torture - Google Search


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Because, there is no guarantee of a fair trial under the Assad regime and they rape, torture and kill people, just like Daesh do. British government policy is not to extradite in such circumstances


Did IS/Daesh, that she made the choice to go & join, offer fair trials? The problem for her is that she is not in the UK to be extradited but on the ground where the crimes were committed. Her fate will be decided by others who might not see fair trials in the same light as you.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Have you read anything in this thread and the situation on the ground where she is? She's not being held by a recognized State with the infrastructure to do this through. FFS what do you think has been going on in Syria?


I think that is why she is spouting off to a Times reporter because she is a bit worried about how those around her might react. Hence her wanting to get back to the UK asap before the local form of justice is served.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

If she ever makes it back here, there is zero chance she would be handed over to Syria or Iraq or anyone else. In that sense, she may be more fortunate than others around her. She has a potential way out, albeit one that will probably involve a few years in prison first.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> As she is not in the UK we could not extradite her anyway.


If she was in the UK 'we' would not need to extradite her?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> If she was in the UK 'we' would not need to extradite her?


I think the idea there is that the UK might extradite her to Assad's Syria. We may need to chalk that up on the growing list of absurd suggestions coming out of this thread.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

Anyone would think p&p was a bunch of daft and foolish teenagers.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

New interview with Sky here.
IS bride Shamima Begum tells Sky News: 'A lot of people should have sympathy for me'


----------



## tim (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> If she was in the UK 'we' would not need to extradite her?


Read the post I was responding to


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

tim said:


> Read the post I was responding to


Sorry got the end with shit on it.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

Poor woman, suffering in a refugee camp and then Sky reporters arrive. Thank Allah at least it wasn't Kay Burley.


----------



## rekil (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> New interview with Sky here.
> IS bride Shamima Begum tells Sky News: 'A lot of people should have sympathy for me'


I suggest that people, especially those of the 'ISIS - not that bad really' bent, should give Nadia Murad and RBSS a listen. I remember when kidnapped yazidis were being mocked by Assadists who were accusing them of being a meme to justify imperialist intervention and so on.  

 

 



Citizen journalists capture life in Raqqa under Islamic State


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

.


copliker said:


> I suggest that people, especially those of the 'ISIS - not that bad really' bent, should give Nadia Murad and RBSS a listen. I remember when kidnapped yazidis were being mocked by Assadists who were accusing them of being a meme to justify imperialist intervention and so on.
> 
> View attachment 162156
> 
> ...



Liked for their bravery. Not the content.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> New interview with Sky here.
> IS bride Shamima Begum tells Sky News: 'A lot of people should have sympathy for me'



Magda Goebbels in 'only a housewife' claim....


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

Brigitte Kuhlmann - just a response to the men in her life...


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> I think tim doesn't see them as more of a threat to life than a tree falling on your head.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> The 800 prisoners Trump is on about, not her. Stop skim reading then going off half cocked. It isn’t your usual style.



Fair enough, obviously I've conflated the two - mind if I ask why you're ok with her returning to Britain but not the 800? I ask cos obviously a lot of people are raising the possibility she would be a threat etc.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

marshall said:


> But the thread is about this one British school girl and her particular situation, isn't it


What's all this 'schoolgirl' bollocks? Is it an attempt to make people feel sorry for her? She's not a schoolgirl, she's a 19 year old terrorist who happens to have been born in the UK.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I ask cos obviously a lot of people are raising the possibility she would be a threat etc.



You seem to be confusing the words 'would' & 'could'.


----------



## LDC (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, obviously I've conflated the two - mind if I ask why you're ok with her returning to Britain but not the 800? I ask cos obviously a lot of people are raising the possibility she would be a threat etc.



For me it's not really about whether she's a threat or not. I have no idea if she would be, and people with the knowledge and skills to do so can make that assessment.

It should be obvious though that any threat she might be is multifaceted, she might unlikely/unable to do something herself, but might encourage or facilitate others to do so, even if it's only through people she's never had contact with being provoked by her being back in the UK - and that includes right wing responses as well of course.

For me it's a political position. You go there and do that, then ask for help to come while in the same interview express no regrets and even say it was OK? Fuck you, live with the consequences.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 17, 2019)

copliker said:


> I suggest that people, especially those of the 'ISIS - not that bad really' bent, should give Nadia Murad and RBSS a listen. I remember when kidnapped yazidis were being mocked by Assadists who were accusing them of being a meme to justify imperialist intervention and so on.
> 
> View attachment 162156
> 
> ...



Her story is pretty grim.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I see potential dangers in most things, but if I was paralyzed by every potential danger inherent in achieving anything I'd starve to death across the road from a supermarket.
> 
> I'd have no problem with a Corbyn government removing her British citizenship - I truth I'd have no problem with a Corbyn government throwing her put the back of a plane 5,000 feet over the Atlantic...



I'll take that as a yes. 



Spymaster said:


> Fine by me. And if this was a white, male, nazi, Christian; a tory; or whoever is the current leftie hate figure du jour, it would probably be fine by you and most of the others on this thread too.



No, I wouldn't. I'll give you an example to help you explain why - people have often called for the EDL to be banned in Britain for example, something I've always strongly disagreed with. That's not because I care about freedom of speech for the far right or any othetr nonsense like that, it's because if you start saying the state should be allowed to determine what is legitimate political protest etc then they'll be banning left organisations and trade unions quite quickly. 

I think if a situation happens where this individual is stripped of citizenship - on grounds which of course will be determined by lawyers in courts - then this will simply make it possible for lots of other people to be stripped of citizenship. 

Daesh are a monstrosity. Don't let the monster distract you from the fact that the state is designed to exploit and oppress us all. 




Spymaster said:


> You're an idiot.



And you're a charmless prick. But more importantly you're reacting emotionally to this situation and it's causing you to talk shite.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fair enough, obviously I've conflated the two - mind if I ask why you're ok with her returning to Britain but not the 800? I ask cos obviously a lot of people are raising the possibility she would be a threat etc.



She was an school age young woman when she was attracted to a way of life that somehow appealed to her.
Whatever reason she has crossed a line and supported an organisation that commits deplorable acts. 
These acts are probably the work of the trained combatants who are part of the contingent of 800 prisoners.
I fear the rehabilitation of those committing such acts may be well passed. Radicalisation takes place in British prisons, how many more will be encouraged to go down this path.
That’s why I personally would not want them back.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> For me it's not really about whether she's a threat or not. I have no idea if she would be, and people with the knowledge and skills to do so can make that assessment.
> 
> It should be obvious though that any threat she might be is multifaceted, she might unlikely/unable to do something herself, but might encourage or facilitate others to do so, even if it's only through people she's never had contact with being provoked by her being back in the UK - and that includes right wing responses as well of course.
> 
> For me it's a political position. You go there and do that, then ask for help to come while in the same interview express no regrets and even say it was OK? Fuck you, live with the consequences.



That's not a political position, that's an emotional reaction.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sprocket. said:


> She was an school age young woman when she was attracted to a way of life that somehow appealed to her.
> Whatever reason she has crossed a line and supported an organisation that commits deplorable acts.
> These acts are probably the work of the trained combatants who are part of the contingent of 800 prisoners.
> I fear the rehabilitation of those committing such acts may be well passed. Radicalisation takes place in British prisons, how many more will be encouraged to go down this path.
> That’s why I personally would not want them back.



But you're ok with her coming back?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> You seem to be confusing the words 'would' & 'could'.



Christ, I said possibility! Chill.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> No not in the context. Maybe he should have said 'Means of production' but in context it is not out of order.



We'll agree to disagree - for me, referring to women as breeding factories is pretty mysogynistic.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> And you're a charmless prick. But more importantly you're reacting emotionally to this situation and it's causing you to talk shite.


The irony of this post aside...what's your excuse for talking shite?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think if a situation happens where this individual is stripped of citizenship - on grounds which of course will be determined by lawyers in courts - then this will simply make it possible for lots of other people to be stripped of citizenship.



FFS, she can't be stripped of citizenship.

Christ, you are posting a load of old dribble.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 17, 2019)

Threat my arse. She'll be one of the most monitored individuals in the country with 4 years of inside knowledge on the beards. Why wouldn't they bring her back. She'd be a total fucking asset if she's dense enough to actually get in touch with anyone.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Sue said:


> Are they? I must've missed that. Feel free to quote the relevant posts.



It's been implied rather than openly stated but there's a few.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

probably have to take them back as making them stateless isn't an option and the Kurds are unlikely to massacre them, unfortunately.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> We'll agree to disagree - for me, referring to women as breeding factories is pretty mysogynistic.


If a woman (or schoolgirl) applies for a job as a breeding factory then what is wrong with calling her that? That is her job title. 
In any other context I would agree it is well out of order.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> It's been implied rather than openly stated but there's a few.


So what's actually happening is "you're reacting emotionally to this situation and it's causing you to talk shite."?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> FFS, she can't be stripped of citizenship.
> 
> Christ, you are posting a load of old dribble.



Sajid Javid thinks differently and while I wouldn't normally take his opinion over yours he is the Home Sec. 

Pregnant ISIS bride could be stripped of UK citizenship and 'sent to Bangladesh'


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> Threat my arse. She'll be one of the most monitored individuals in the country with 4 years of inside knowledge on the beards. Why wouldn't they bring her back. She'd be a total fucking asset if she's dense enough to actually get in touch with anyone.



she spent four years on her back spreading her legs for a jihadist an asset has something useful to offer she doesnt have anything to offer and isnt sorry


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2019)

She's on message with the main technical aspects of the defence-just a housewife  etc.  We just need to do a little more work on presentation.
She comes across as very candid, which is a good start. I just wonder if she might want to reconsider how great everything was in Raqqa.
The whole bit about the experience  making her stronger and becoming tougher might not play that well with a jury. That bit about watching the head chopping videos before she went out was a bit unfortunate,  too. Might need to instruct counsel for an opinion on that bit. Still we can work with this.  I don't think we need to recommend a guilty plea just yet.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> *she spent four years on her back spreading her legs for a jihadist* an asset has something useful to offer she doesnt have anything to offer and isnt sorry



Here's more evidence of the blatant mysogyny tim was referring to by the way. This isn't relevant to the discussion. It's just likesfish venting his feelings of frustration around women and sex.


----------



## Sprocket. (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> But you're ok with her coming back?



I’m done here, I have bigger and much more scary things to whittle about.
Bye.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

Referring to a 'breeding factory' is crass, and, in another context, might well be misogynistic.  But, ffs, what sort of warped priorities focus on that alleged misogynistic words rather than the actual brutal misogynistic acts of the regime she supported, with its stonings and mass rapes?!


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sajid Javid thinks differently and while I wouldn't normally take his opinion over yours he is the Home Sec.
> 
> Pregnant ISIS bride could be stripped of UK citizenship and 'sent to Bangladesh'


Did you even read the story you linked to? Can you quote the passage where Sajid Javid said what you claim he said?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> If a woman (or schoolgirl) applies for a job as a breeding factory then what is wrong with calling her that? That is her job title.
> In any other context I would agree it is well out of order.



What's wrong with that is that although there are religious sects and far right organisations that do see women as breeding factories and there are even women that actively go along with that understanding of why women exist, we're not religious sects or far right organisations so we don't do that. 

Do you really need this explaining?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Referring to a 'breeding factory' is crass, and, in another context, might well be misogynistic.  But, ffs, what sort of warped priorities focus on that alleged misogynistic words rather than the actual brutal misogynistic acts of the regime she supported, with its stonings and mass rapes?!



Who on this thread is downplaying the mysogyny or the brutality of Daesh?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sajid Javid thinks differently and while I wouldn't normally take his opinion over yours he is the Home Sec.
> 
> Pregnant ISIS bride could be stripped of UK citizenship and 'sent to Bangladesh'



There's nothing in that report that says Javid thinks he can strip her of UK citizenship. 

Please stop making shit up & polluting the thread.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Did you even read the story you linked to? Can you quote the passage where Sajid Javid said what you claim he said?



Yes I did and you're right, he doesn't say he will strip her of citizenship but there is not a lot of difference between that and permanently banning someone from the country.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> I just wonder if she might want to reconsider how great everything was in Raqqa.


That's the bit that struck me as well. She was shocked when her friend was killed cos everything was all good still back then. She doesn't regret joining IS. She only really regrets that IS is losing.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Here's more evidence of the blatant mysogyny tim was referring to by the way. This isn't relevant to the discussion. It's just likesfish venting his feelings of frustration around women and sex.


It's fucking outrageous that this sort of chat is apparently ok on urban now


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> There's nothing in that report that says Javid thinks he can strip her of UK citizenship.
> 
> Please stop making shit up & polluting the thread.



Try this one then: British Isis bride who fled to Syria 'has right to return to UK', security minister says

"The government has stripped known Isis members with dual nationality of their British citizenship, but make sole UK nationals stateless under international law."


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes I did and you're right, he doesn't say he will strip her of citizenship but there is not a lot of difference between that and permanently banning someone from the country.



FFS, he's not even permanently banning her from the country, he's quoted as saying - "If you do manage to return you should be ready to be questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted."


----------



## marshall (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> What's all this 'schoolgirl' bollocks? Is it an attempt to make people feel sorry for her? She's not a schoolgirl, she's a 19 year old terrorist who happens to have been born in the UK.



15 or 19, whatever, I do feel sorry for her. Can't help it.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Try this one then: British Isis bride who fled to Syria 'has right to return to UK', security minister says
> 
> "The government has stripped known Isis members with dual nationality of their British citizenship, but make sole UK nationals stateless under international law."


"Has the right to return to the UK." It's right there in the link


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

A 10-Minute Trial, a Death Sentence: Iraqi Justice for ISIS Suspects

is her fate if she ends up in the hands of the iraqi authorities kangeroo court followed by death but then again daesh didnt really give a fuck about anyone else so unlucky
 I was responding to the idea that she'd be some sort of intelligence asset Daesh didn't give jobs to women so shes got nothing to trade


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she spent four years on her back spreading her legs for a jihadist an asset has something useful to offer she doesnt have anything to offer and isnt sorry



Even if that were true, you don't think an demonstrably easy to manipulate teenager with a four years of credible first hand involvement with ISIS members and their womenfolk isn't someone the British state could get capital from? Even without the newborn as leverage that's a pretty big open goal to miss by not getting her back to the UK.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> No, I wouldn't. I'll give you an example to help you explain why - people have often called for the EDL to be banned in Britain for example, something I've always strongly disagreed with. That's not because I care about freedom of speech for the far right or any othetr nonsense like that, it's because if you start saying the state should be allowed to determine what is legitimate political protest etc then they'll be banning left organisations and trade unions quite quickly.
> 
> I think if a situation happens where this individual is stripped of citizenship - on grounds which of course will be determined by lawyers in courts - then this will simply make it possible for lots of other people to be stripped of citizenship.
> 
> Daesh are a monstrosity. Don't let the monster distract you from the fact that the state is designed to exploit and oppress us all.


I agree with all of that, but I disagree with some of the conclusions that you seem to be deriving from it.  I don’t think that Shamima Begum should be stripped of her UK citizenship, not for joining IS, not for supporting beheadings as “allowed under Islam”, not for any of her views or actions.

But that’s not the same as saying she should not be held to account for what she has done, if the ppportunity arises, nor is it the same as saying she bears no responsibility for any of it.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> And you're a charmless prick.


 It takes work.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> "Has the right to return to the UK." It's right there in the link



Yes as long as she isn't stripped of citizenship in which case she loses the right.

Try and remember this discussion started because some people were saying they *want *her to be stripped of her citizenship, and then others said it wasn't possible. It is - I'm saying if you're in favour of that you've not thought about it very hard. 

And while I remember: 



Saul Goodman said:


> What's all this 'schoolgirl' bollocks? Is it an attempt to make people feel sorry for her? She's not a schoolgirl, she's a 19 year old terrorist who happens to have been born in the UK.



This is incredibly dishonest and I don't know why you feel the need.

-When she was groomed she was a schoolgirl. 

-When she ran away from home she was a schoolgirl. 

As for terrorist, how are you defining terrorist? Just people who commit acts of terrorism? Or people who marry terrorists as well?


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> we're not religious sects or far right organisations so we don't do that.


What is wrong with saying that a religious sect views women recruits in the way the view women recruits? Next you're going to tell me I can't call the KKK racist.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> I agree with all of that, but I disagree with some of the conclusions that you seem to be deriving from it.  I don’t think that Shamima Begum should be stripped of her UK citizenship, not for joining IS, not for supporting beheadings as “allowed under Islam”, not for any of her views or actions.
> 
> But that’s not the same as saying she should not be held to account for what she has done, if the ppportunity arises, nor is it the same as saying she bears no responsibility for any of it.



But I'm not saying she shouldn't be held to account for what she has done. Haven't said that anywhere. My original point was that I didn't see why people were foaming at the mouth and desperate for vengeance when there's nothing nice in store for her whatever happens.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she spent four years on her back spreading her legs for a jihadist an asset has something useful to offer she doesnt have anything to offer and isnt sorry


You’re undermining your argument with that sort of attitude.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Here's more evidence of the blatant mysogyny tim was referring to by the way. This isn't relevant to the discussion. It's just likesfish venting his feelings of frustration around women and sex.


FFS. Play the ball not the player. What a hate filled post because someone has taken a contrary view to your position.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

MrSki said:


> What is wrong with saying that a religious sect views women recruits in the way the view women recruits? Next you're going to tell me I can't call the KKK racist.



That's not what was said. gentlegreen didn't say that Daesh/IS viewed her as a "jihadist factory". He just straight up called her a "jihadist factory".


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> But I'm not saying she shouldn't be held to account for what she has done. Haven't said that anywhere. My original point was that I didn't see why people were foaming at the mouth and desperate for vengeance when there's nothing nice in store for her whatever happens.


My apologies then; I must have misread or confused your views with someone else’s.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

A380 said:


> FFS. Play the ball not the player. What a hate filled post because someone has taken a contrary view to your position.



Hey, you're right, me implying that likesfish is engaging in mysogny because he has a lot of frustration around women and sex is a bit speculative. No more speculative than some of his posts in relation to this girl though eh?

More importantly, people were claiming there was no mysogyny on this thread, I gave you a fairly clear cut example of it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> ...some people were saying they *want *her to be stripped of her citizenship, and then others said it wasn't possible. It is



It isn't. 

Under international & UK law, citizenship can not be revolved, unless there's dual citizenship, which there isn't in this case, someone can not be left stateless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> But I'm not saying she shouldn't be held to account for what she has done. Haven't said that anywhere. My original point was that I didn't see why people were foaming at the mouth and desperate for vengeance when there's nothing nice in store for her whatever happens.


You've said a fuck of a lot more than that on this thread. At one point you flat-out accused me of being racist for suggesting that Begum should be held accountable for what she has done. You're all over the place.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> My apologies then; I must have misread or confused your views with someone else’s.



No worries. This seems a more angry/confused thread than most and a lot of people seem to be misreading things. I've definitely reacted more sharply than I normally would.

Mainly because I feel like the news coverage of this story has very little to do with a 19 year old girl currently in a refugee camp, and is much more about whipping up anger and bile at Daesh. Which is a perfectly valid thing to be angry at of course, but I don't think it's that useful. Daesh are all but defeated. The situation which gave rise to them continues.

E2A: Just to be crystal clear; whipping up anger at Daesh, who are all but defeated, is likely to mean whipping up anger at Muslims in general.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is incredibly dishonest and I don't know why you feel the need.
> 
> -When she was groomed she was a schoolgirl.
> 
> ...


Telling the truth is "incredibly dishonest"? 
Are you her sister or a recruitment officer or...?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she spent four years on her back spreading her legs for a jihadist ...


No no no


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've said a fuck of a lot more than that on this thread. At one point you flat-out accused me of being racist for suggesting that Begum should be held accountable for what she has done. You're all over the place.



No I didn't. If you think you can quote me saying she shouldn't be held accountable, then go for it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Telling the truth is "incredibly dishonest"?
> Are you her sister or a recruitment officer or...?



You objected to her being described as a schoolgirl. It's a fact that she was a schoolgirl. I don't really know what you're arguing with. You don't want anyone to say a 15 year old girl that went to school was a schoolgirl.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> She's on message with the main technical aspects of the defence-just a housewife  etc.  We just need to do a little more work on presentation.
> She comes across as very candid, which is a good start. I just wonder if she might want to reconsider how great everything was in Raqqa.
> The whole bit about the experience  making her stronger and becoming tougher might not play that well with a jury. That bit about watching the head chopping videos before she went out was a bit unfortunate,  too. Might need to instruct counsel for an opinion on that bit. Still we can work with this.  I don't think we need to recommend a guilty plea just yet.


Play this backstory right, not only can we get her a suspended sentence but maybe into the X factor semi finals too...


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> This seems a more angry/confused thread than most


And longer, more quickly, than the case seems to warrant. I’m not entirely sure why that should be. Wonder if it’s somehow easier to have views on an individual than a situation, but the main IS thread took three months to reach 40 pages. This one took three days.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 17, 2019)

I am a lot less bothered by the idea of this woman coming back to the UK with her child, than I am about potentially hundreds of male UK/IS terrorists currently in detention in theatre coming back to the UK.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

skyscraper101 said:


> Even if that were true, you don't think an demonstrably easy to manipulate teenager with a four years of credible first hand involvement with ISIS members and their womenfolk isn't someone the British state could get capital from? Even without the newborn as leverage that's a pretty big open goal to miss by not getting her back to the UK.



isis have about a week left as any sort of coherent existence so any intelligence would be  of limited value.
 you don't need a command structure or plan to murder people by driving a car or getting stab happy so a used isis slut and one time slave handler is of no value at all.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> a used isis slut


Fuck off you misogynist prick.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> a used isis slut



Just stop it now, FFS.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> And longer, more quickly, than the case seems to warrant. I’m not entirely sure why that should be. Wonder if it’s somehow easier to have views on an individual than a situation, but the main IS thread took three months to reach 40 pages. This one took three days.



I think we'd be more honest if we said we all have an emotional reaction to it and to try and have a thoughtful discussion with that in mind.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> ... so a used isis slut ...


Ffs.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 17, 2019)

Whatever she is I can't see how she can be referred as a slut. Twat.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> used isis slut


You may think this language makes it seem like you really, really dislike IS, but it just makes you seem unhinged and unfocused.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

oh noes I've used rude words about a woman who'd happily see me tortured to death bothered am I not.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> isis have about a week left as any sort of coherent existence so any intelligence would be  of limited value.
> you don't need a command structure or plan to murder people by driving a car or getting stab happy so a used isis slut and one time slave handler is of no value at all.



You certainly could do with some intelligence though the current deficit is so great it may well be of limited value.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> oh noes I've used rude words about a woman who'd happily see me tortured to death bothered am I not.



Oh shut up


----------



## Wilf (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> is a used isis slut


 Just saw this thread and was surprised it was 42 pages in a couple of days. Presumably several spats going on but still might have been worth reading. Then I saw this. So probably not.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> oh noes I've used rude words about a woman who'd happily see me tortured to death bothered am I not.


It’s not the fact you dislike the woman that’s the problem, it’s the way you’ve chosen to denigrate her.

As a point of reference, imagine you’d used racist words to express your feelings about her.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You objected to her being described as a schoolgirl. It's a fact that she was a schoolgirl.


It's also a fact that Hitler was once a 5 year old schoolboy. Myra Hindley was also a 15 year old schooolgirl, at some point.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> oh noes I've used rude words about a woman who'd happily see me tortured to death bothered am I not.



You are not carrying urban with you here, for very good reasons, perhaps you need to reflect on that, because that's something that should bother you.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> used isis slut .


No. This is unacceptable language.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> oh noes I've used rude words about a woman who'd happily see me tortured to death bothered am I not.


The point is that casual misogyny affects more than just the person to whom it's addressed.


----------



## Wilf (Feb 17, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> It’s not the fact you dislike the woman that’s the problem, it’s the way you’ve chosen to denigrate her.
> 
> As a point of reference, imagine you’d used racist words to express your feelings about her.


Do you get Danny's point likesfish ?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Do you get Danny's point likesfish ?



Likesfish doesn't do reflection, he's an idiot. Probably an _actual _idiot.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

Wilf said:


> Do you get Danny's point likesfish ?



If he has to have it pointed out to him he shouldn't be here.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 17, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> If he has to have it pointed out to him he shouldn't be here.


It is surprising to be having to make that point.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> isis have about a week left as any sort of coherent existence so any intelligence would be  of limited value.
> you don't need a command structure or plan to murder people by driving a car or getting stab happy so a used isis slut and one time slave handler is of no value at all.



This is exactly my point about who is a 'risk' and what needs to be done about risk. I already said that based on what you post here I think you are a risk to people. But that nonetheless my personal feelings about whether you are a risk should not determine whether you are imprisoned or stripped of citizenship or subject to any other punitive sanction. You have an unhealthy obsession with weapons and violence and you're a mysogynist, I wouldn't want you around my friends and family. Regardless though, I wouldn't call for you to be subject to punitive action from the state precisely because a) the fact that I think you're a risk doesn't make it so and b) even if we did lock you up there would be plenty of others like you walking around, notably the ones bright enough not to make anyone think they were a risk, and even if I could persuade myself that made us all safer, in reality it wouldn't. 

I hope that everyone who has accused tim of inventing mysogyny on this thread will reflect on where we've got to on Page 42 and ask themselves if perhaps actually, there was some pretty obviously dodgy stuff being said and that it has escalated because people were willing to excuse it.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 17, 2019)

Nori Yazidi✌ (@Nori_Yazidi) on Twitter

Nori Yazidi✌ (@Nori_Yazidi) | Twitter


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> This is exactly my point about who is a 'risk' and what needs to be done about risk. I already said that based on what you post here I think you are a risk to people. But that nonetheless my personal feelings about whether you are a risk should not determine whether you are imprisoned or stripped of citizenship or subject to any other punitive sanction. You have an unhealthy obsession with weapons and violence and you're a mysogynist, I wouldn't want you around my friends and family. Regardless though, I wouldn't call for you to be subject to punitive action from the state precisely because a) the fact that I think you're a risk doesn't make it so and b) even if we did lock you up there would be plenty of others like you walking around, notably the ones bright enough not to make anyone think they were a risk, and even if I could persuade myself that made us all safer, in reality it wouldn't.
> 
> I hope that everyone who has accused tim of inventing mysogyny on this thread will reflect on where we've got to on Page 42 and ask themselves if perhaps actually, there was some pretty obviously dodgy stuff being said and that it has escalated because people were willing to excuse it.


Do you even read your own posts before posting them?
Because somebody saying something misogynistic on the internet is exactly the same as someobody stealing her sister's passport and flying off and joining a terrorist organisation for 4 years.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2019)

she went off to be a fuck toy for a hunky jihad fighter for a truly repellant regime


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she went off to be a fuck toy for a hunky jihad fighter for a truly repellant regime


Are you pissed?


----------



## skyscraper101 (Feb 17, 2019)

She was a groomed child.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she went off to be a fuck toy for a hunky jihad fighter for a truly repellant regime



You are acting like a complete cunt, now fuck off.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 17, 2019)

Stop digging, pal.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 17, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> And longer, more quickly, than the case seems to warrant. I’m not entirely sure why that should be. Wonder if it’s somehow easier to have views on an individual than a situation, but the main IS thread took three months to reach 40 pages. This one took three days.



I said at the start of this thread that this was a perfect media click bait story. It speaks to various agenda of both the middle class left/liberals and also the alt right. My local rag, the Birmingham Mail, is getting _thousands _of comments on this story.

I’ve got zero sympathy for her but the debate is becoming increasingly vile on both sides


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she went off to be a fuck toy for a hunky jihad fighter for a truly repellant regime





skyscraper101 said:


> She was a groomed child.



No, she was neither.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

The whole thread has been a fight of sorts over this young woman. With very few women actually posting of course.


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What bollocks. She's 19 and unrepentent about fucking off to join a terrorist "state" who enslaved, raped, and murdered thousands of _other_ women and who would do the same to _you_ in a heartbeat. She seems to have happily engaged with what the scum were doing. She says she escaped because she saw no future for _the caliphate_, not because she thought they were cunts.
> 
> Pretty disgusting what you're doing here. Trying to crowbar in your agenda laden misogyny angle. The only difference between her and a male who'd done the same is that she's pregnant.
> 
> Absolutely nothing should be afforded her by the government. If she does manage to make it back here somehow her child should be removed and adopted whilst she is imprisoned until a) she shows some remorse, and b) she has been 'deradicalised' (if that's possible).


Care to reconsider whether I was 'trying to crowbar in my misogyny angle' yet Spy?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> The whole thread has been a fight of sorts over this young woman. With very few women actually posting of course.


What's your point? Do we have to start a "permission" thread, asking if it's OK to post on any thread where a woman is mentioned?


----------



## Helen Back (Feb 17, 2019)

No sympathy whatsoever.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 17, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> The whole thread has been a fight of sorts over this young woman. With very few women actually posting of course.



That’s a really odd comment. I expect there haven’t been many Muslims commenting either, or teenagers.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Care to reconsider whether I was 'trying to crowbar in my misogyny angle' yet Spy?


No, of course not. That was a response to your posts 30 pages ago where there'd been no suggestion of the nasty shit that Likesfish has come out with in the last couple. If you want to pull him on it now, I'm right behind you.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> And longer, more quickly, than the case seems to warrant. I’m not entirely sure why that should be. Wonder if it’s somehow easier to have views on an individual than a situation, but the main IS thread took three months to reach 40 pages. This one took three days.



She's a proxy.  Her case is a simple, human encapsulation of some of the bigger political questions bubbling away at the moment e.g. the tension between Islamism and Britishness, and the paradox of the left's opposition to the state even when the state is opposing something the left also opposes (i.e. a brutal regime).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Do you even read your own posts before posting them?
> Because somebody saying something misogynistic on the internet is exactly the same as someobody stealing her sister's passport and flying off and joining a terrorist organisation for 4 years.



Did I say it was the same? No I didn't. 

My point was just because _someone _thinks _someone _is a risk, that doesn't justify punitive action against them. I'm not comparing the risk. I'm saying that just because some people think someone is a risk, that doesn't justify pre-emptive punitive measures.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No, of course not. That was a response to a post 30 pages ago where there'd been no suggestion of the nasty shit that Likesfish has come out with in the last couple. If you want to pull him on it now, I'm right behind you.



You have already pulled him up, as have many of the rest of us.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No, of course not. That was a response to a post 30 pages ago where there'd been no suggestion of the nasty shit that Likesfish has come out with in the last couple. If you want to pull him on it now, I'm right behind you.



That's drivel. This has been building up.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> What's your point? Do we have to start a "permission" thread, asking if it's OK to post?



If you talk to me politely I may answer. I'm not interested in having an argument with you, find someone else to do that with.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> ...and the paradox of the left's opposition to the state even when the state is opposing something the left also opposes (i.e. a brutal regime).



How's that a paradox? You do know 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' doesn't actually hold water as a rational statement yes? Even less so than usual when your friend helped create your enemy in the first place, and is committed to policies which act as a very effective recruitment tool for that enemy.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's drivel. This has been building up.


More nonsense. _One person_ has played that card and he's been roundly battered for it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> How's that a paradox? You do know 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' doesn't actually hold water as a rational statement yes? Even less so than usual when your friend helped create your enemy in the first place, and is committed to policies which act as a very effective recruitment tool for that enemy.



Quite.  Which many on the liberal left seem not to understand.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> the tension between Islamism and Britishness



What tension is that then? 



Athos said:


> the paradox of the left's opposition to the state even when the state is opposing something the left also opposes (i.e. a brutal regime).



There's no paradox. The states opposition to Daesh is not based on the same motivations and interests as those of the working class. The response of the labour movement and of socialists to Daesh must not be to justify an increasingly authoritarian state because that authoritarian state will be used against us.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Quite.  Which many on the liberal left seem not to understand.



Nice try, no it was you who said there was a paradox not the 'liberal left'.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> More nonsense. _One person_ has played that card and he's been roundly battered for it.



Wrongly. And all those who's attitude was to ignore more subtle uses of mysogynist language should now recognise that that has led to more overt mysogyny.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did I say it was the same? No I didn't.
> 
> My point was just because _someone _thinks _someone _is a risk, that doesn't justify punitive action against them. I'm not comparing the risk. I'm saying that just because some people think someone is a risk, that doesn't justify pre-emptive punitive measures.


Thinks? She spent 4 years as a member of a terrorist group, either watching or taking part in rapes and murders. Of course she's a fucking risk. Jesus Christ!


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What tension is that then



Whether Britishness is simply being born in Britain, of the idea of British values, and the extent to which those values are compatible/clash with Islamism.




SpackleFrog said:


> There's no paradox. The states opposition to Daesh is not based on the same motivations and interests as those of the working class. The response of the labour movement and of socialists to Daesh must not be to justify an increasingly authoritarian state because that authoritarian state will be used against us.


I agree with that completely.  But, equally, a desire to oppose the 'traditional British right' ought not to strengthen the 'Islamic right'.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Thinks? She spent 4 years as a member of a terrorist group, either watching or taking part in rapes and murders. Of course she's a fucking risk. Jesus Christ!



Again, you're not reading my posts or engaging with what I am saying. I'm not saying she's not a risk. I'm just responding to those on this thread who believe they are in a position to know what risks she poses to society and therefore what punitive sanctions should be used against her. 

I notice you've casually accused her of possibly "taking part in rapes and murders" by the way. Do you have any evidence or reports to back up that claim? 

Just so you don't have any room to twist what I'm saying, I'm not saying that she didn't take part in rapes and murders. I'm just asking you why you think she may have done so.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Nice try, no it was you who said there was a paradox not the 'liberal left'.



No,I'm saying that whether or not there is a paradox is a hot topic at the moment on the left.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Whether Britishness is simply being born in Britain, of the idea of British values, and the extent to which those values are compatible/clash with Islamism.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with that completely.  But, equally, a desire to oppose the 'traditional British' right ought not to strengthen the 'Islamic right'.



I'm glad you agree on the second point. I hope you'll also agree that any action taken against her could also be taken against others - for example those who travelled to Syria to fight Daesh. 

On the first point, I'm not sure what you mean. Clearly there's no tension between being born in Britain and becoming an Islamist, so you can't mean that. I assume therefore you're talking about a tension between British values and the values of Islamists. Where does this tension arise?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Again, you're not reading my posts or engaging with what I am saying. I'm not saying she's not a risk. I'm just responding to those on this thread who believe they are in a position to know what risks she poses to society and therefore what punitive sanctions should be used against her.


Who are these people you are you referring to? 



SpackleFrog said:


> I notice you've casually accused her of possibly "taking part in rapes and murders" by the way. Do you have any evidence or reports to back up that claim?
> 
> Just so you don't have any room to twist what I'm saying, I'm not saying that she didn't take part in rapes and murders. I'm just asking you why you think she may have done so.


Because that's what members of terrorist groups tend to do... Terrorism.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Whether Britishness is simply being born in Britain, of the idea of British values



Or option C: something with no actual meaning, invoked or ignored at will by those who want to trick people into doing stuff that makes no fucking sense, like voting UKIP or invading Iraq.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> And all those who's attitude was to ignore more subtle uses of mysogynist language should now recognise that that has led to more overt mysogyny.


_By one person_ who's being a twat. That hasn't been the tone on this thread at all. Gentlegreen's 'baby factory' comment was ill judged but the thrust of his point was accurate. These women are (agreeing to) being used as sex objects and to produce babies for "the caliphate".


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> No,I'm saying that whether or not there is a paradox is a hot topic at the moment on the left.



If you were saying that, you'd have said it. You didn't.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Who are these people you are you referring to?
> 
> 
> Because that's what members of terrorist groups tend to do... Terrorism.



I'm getting bored of you and I don't think you're interested in a genuine discussion so I'm not going to comb the thread for evidence - there's plenty of posts where people have said what level of risk she would pose, and many of them have also suggested various punitive measures be taken. 

I'm glad you've been honest enough to admit you have no evidence that she may have taken part in rapes and murders though, and you're just talking about what you think she might have done, with no basis in fact.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> _By one person_ who's being a twat. That hasn't been the tone on this thread at all. Gentlegreen's 'baby factory' comment was ill judged but the thrust of his point was accurate. These women are (agreeing to) being used as sex objects and to produce babies for "the caliphate".



As I've made clear, I don't agree.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> As I've made clear, I don't agree.


And as I've made clear, you're an idiot.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 17, 2019)

Not just an idiot, but an outright liar.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> As I've made clear, I don't agree.


Would you mind pointing to all these misogynistic posts you keep mentioning?


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm glad you agree on the second point. I hope you'll also agree that any action taken against her could also be taken against others - for example those who travelled to Syria to fight Daesh.



Yes.  Which is part of the reason I've not argued that there should be any action to prevent her from coming to the UK (albeit I have no sympathy for her, have no desire for the state to activey asisst her, and hope that she will be held to account if she does return).



SpackleFrog said:


> On the first point, I'm not sure what you mean. Clearly there's no tension between being born in Britain and becoming an Islamist, so you can't mean that. I assume therefore you're talking about a tension between British values and the values of Islamists. Where does this tension arise?



That'd be somewhat of a derail; my point was her case neatly encapsulates these very current issues (in response to Danny musing about why her specific case has drawn more attention than a more general thread on IS).


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 17, 2019)

I like how this thread has not at all descended into arguments between different Urbs.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> If you were saying that, you'd have said it. You didn't.



Err... that's exactly what I did say!   I referred to the (putative) paradox as being a current question for the left.



Athos said:


> She's a proxy.  Her case is a simple, human encapsulation of some of the bigger political questions bubbling away at the moment e.g. the tension between Islamism and Britishness, and the paradox of the left's opposition to the state even when the state is opposing something the left also opposes (i.e. a brutal regime).



ETA:  I think my syntax was poor; I was tring to convey that the alleged paradox is a second example of a bigger question; not that the tension between Islamism and Britishness was the example of such a question, before going on to assert the existence of the paradox.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> I like how this thread has not at all descended into arguments between different Urbs.


Isn't that the whole point of every thread here? It's like Godwin's law, but Urban's law, which dictates that it's only a matter of time.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That’s a really odd comment. I expect there haven’t been many Muslims commenting either, or teenagers.



Is it? You may find it odd, but I find being one of the few women posting here a bit odd too. 

I think if there were more teenagers, the posts about how daft and foolish they were, that would have been more challenged than it was, the resulting picture of a 15 year old may have been a less either/ or view and more and/and. 

But who knows.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes.  Which is part of the reason I've not argued that there should be any action to prevent her from coming to the UK (albeit I have no sympathy for her, have no desire for the state to activey asisst her, and hope that she will be held to account if she does return).
> 
> 
> 
> That'd be somewhat of a derail; my point was her case neatly encapsulates these very current issues (in response to Danny musing about why her specific case has drawn more attention than a more general thread on IS).



I think that's right but also issues about childhood and femininity and narratives of vulnerability vs competence, vulnerability vs agency etc. All just as political.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I think that's right but also issues about childhood and femininity and narratives of vulnerability vs competence, vulnerability vs agency etc. All just as political.



Yes, I agree.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Whether Britishness is simply being born in Britain, of the idea of British values, and the extent to which those values are compatible/clash with Islamism.
> .


I don't think she is a good example of that, tbh, or at least she shouldn't be. She was born and grew up in Britain. She is British. So are a bunch of other people with abhorrent views. I have a huge problem with the idea of 'British values', a term used by people like Theresa May with whom I have precious little in common, value-wise, despite us both being British. There are other ways of framing a debate about Islamism and what the response of the rest of us should be to things like homophobia or misogynist views. 'Britishness' doesn't really have to enter into it, and shouldn't enter into it imo - that plays to a (big and small C) conservative agenda that we don't have to play along with.  

And most of this thread at least hasn't focused on that kind of debate. Hopefully we're a bit better than that generally, a likefish or so excepted. 

Truth about fundamentalist Islamism like that of IS is that it isn't compatible with anything other than Islamism. It isn't compatible with most other versions of Islam, let alone anything else.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 17, 2019)

It seems Sky news has easy access to her, they reported from there a few hours after her baby was born today. If they can get in and out as desired perhaps the only things stopping her and her baby travelling to the UK may be paperwork and funds.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think she is a good example of that, tbh, or at least she shouldn't be. She was born and grew up in Britain. She is British. So are a bunch of other people with abhorrent views. I have a huge problem with the idea of 'British values', a term used by people like Theresa May with whom I have precious little in common, value-wise, despite us both being British. There are other ways of framing a debate about Islamism and what the response of the rest of us should be to things like homophobia or misogynist views. 'Britishness' doesn't really have to enter into it, and shouldn't enter into it imo - that plays to a (big and small C) conservative agenda that we don't have to play along with.
> 
> And most of this thread at least hasn't focused on that kind of debate. Hopefully we're a bit better than that generally, a likefish or so excepted.
> 
> Truth about fundamentalist Islamism like that of IS is that it isn't compatible with anything other than Islamism. It isn't compatible with most other versions of Islam, let alone anything else.



I would tend to agree with your thinking about the question; my point was that the reason this thread captured the imagination 
is that the question is so topical (albeit most of the thread hasn't been explicity addressed in those terms).


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> What's your point? Do we have to start a "permission" thread, asking if it's OK to post on any thread where a woman is mentioned?



You do a good line in passive aggressive, I’ll give you that.

I don’t post much but read loads - you smell fishy; your misogyny is a giveaway...


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 17, 2019)

Just reread the first couple of pages of this thread
Moronic Kentucky students in Maga hats mock Native American veteran
Not many calls for understanding or trying to find explanations here. 


> I'd say that 'bigoted god botherers' is an accurate description for the large group of Catholic people on an anti-abortion field trip who by accounts posted above also found time and reason to randomly abuse passers by. The fact that they are younger doesn't excuse their behaviour.



Groomed innocents vs bigoted god botherers.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> You do a good line in passive aggressive, I’ll give you that.
> 
> I don’t post much but read loads - you smell fishy; your misogyny is a giveaway...


Get fucked. Prick. Nothing passive about it at all.


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Get fucked. Prick. Nothing passive about it at all.



Ha!


----------



## weepiper (Feb 17, 2019)

Women generally notable in our absence from p and p threads. Twas ever thus.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2019)

She's had her kid and is still pretty much unrepentant. In fact she's demanding that people should have sympathy for her:


> hamima Begum, one of three teenage girls to flee east London for a new life with the Islamic State group, says she has given birth to a baby boy.
> 
> Ms Begum left four years ago aged 15. Found in a Syrian refugee camp last week, she now hopes to return home.
> 
> ...


 And she's still down with beheadings too


> Ms Begum was first tracked down by The Times. In an interview published on 13 February, she said she was heavily pregnant and had lost two children.
> 
> Asked if she was aware of IS beheadings before going to Syria, she told Sky News: "I knew about those things and I was OK with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left.
> 
> "From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed."


And she loved all the videos


> She continued: "During the time I left I saw all the videos on the internet and that just kind of attracted me to them. Like it attracted a lot of people."


IS teenage bride Begum gives birth


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

weepiper said:


> Women generally notable in our absence from p and p threads. Twas ever thus.



Why do you think that is?  Wht needs to change to put it right?


----------



## Baronage-Phase (Feb 17, 2019)

editor said:


> She's had her kid and is still pretty much unrepentant. In fact she's demanding that people should have sympathy for her:
> And she's still down with beheadings too
> And she loved all the videos



"Islamicamly that's allowed"...she said that about beheadings....she is completely brainwashed. 
She hasn't a clue how fucked up she is....
How does someone change from that kind of fuckedupness?
Can someone like this be rehabilitated into a western modern civil society?


----------



## Edie (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Get fucked. Prick. Nothing passive about it at all.


Steady.



Smokeandsteam said:


> That’s a really odd comment. I expect there haven’t been many Muslims commenting either, or teenagers.


Its not an odd comment.

Who does this woman _belong_ to. That’s what the fights over isn’t it? 

So no it’s not weird that Red Cat made that comment.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

editor said:


> ..
> 
> 
> > She continued: "During the time I left I saw all the videos on the internet and that just kind of attracted me to them. Like it attracted a lot of people."


Yeah, she couldn't possibly still be a threat. 
I can't believe people are giving her the time of day. I'm with Spy here, if it was a white bloke with a swastika tattoo, people would be screaming too bring back hanging.


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> And longer, more quickly, than the case seems to warrant. I’m not entirely sure why that should be. Wonder if it’s somehow easier to have views on an individual than a situation, but the main IS thread took three months to reach 40 pages. This one took three days.



 It is largely pretty clear cut. Despite the weird stuff SF and Tim are coming out with most people are in agreement I think.  Those things are being. The state shouldn’t go out of its way, send people over to retrieve her. If she makes it back here, investigation possible prosecution and her child probably taken into care.  

 Much easier than coming up with a solution for the multi dimensional horror show that is much of the Middle East.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

Edie said:


> Steady.


What, you think I should let some prick call me a misogynyst and say nothing?


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2019)

Anyway I am just back from the pub so catching up.  Has anyone been banned or change their minds yet?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Would you mind pointing to all these misogynistic posts you keep mentioning?



I've told you - I'm not interested in highlighting salient issues in the thread for you because I don't believe you're engaging genuinely in the discussion. 

And because you're a rude prick.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> And as I've made clear, you're an idiot.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes.  Which is part of the reason I've not argued that there should be any action to prevent her from coming to the UK (albeit I have no sympathy for her, have no desire for the state to activey asisst her, and hope that she will be held to account if she does return).
> 
> 
> 
> That'd be somewhat of a derail; my point was her case neatly encapsulates these very current issues (in response to Danny musing about why her specific case has drawn more attention than a more general thread on IS).



So you're not saying there is a tension between British values and Islamist values then?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Just reread the first couple of pages of this thread
> Moronic Kentucky students in Maga hats mock Native American veteran
> Not many calls for understanding or trying to find explanations here.
> 
> ...



They weren't living in a refugee camp and there wasn't a discussion about stripping them of citizenship to be fair.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I've told you - I'm not interested in highlighting salient issues in the thread for you because I don't believe you're engaging genuinely in the discussion.
> 
> And because you're a rude prick.


It's hard not to be rude when you're faced with imebeciles who don't realise they are.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> she went off to be a fuck toy for a hunky jihad fighter for a truly repellant regime


And on that note, you're banned from this thread.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Yeah, she couldn't possibly still be a threat.
> I can't believe people are giving her the time of day. I'm with Spy here, if it was a white bloke with a swastika tattoo, people would be screaming too bring back hanging.



I wouldn't.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

xenon said:


> It is largely pretty clear cut. Despite the weird stuff SF and Tim are coming out with most people are in agreement I think.  Those things are being. The state shouldn’t go out of its way, send people over to retrieve her. If she makes it back here, investigation possible prosecution and her child probably taken into care.
> 
> Much easier than coming up with a solution for the multi dimensional horror show that is much of the Middle East.



I haven't said that at all. My points have been about how posters here are discussing the issue.

E2A: As in I'm not disagreeing with your take, to be clear.


----------



## xenon (Feb 17, 2019)

likesfish said:


> isis have about a week left as any sort of coherent existence so any intelligence would be  of limited value.
> you don't need a command structure or plan to murder people by driving a car or getting stab happy so a used isis slut and one time slave handler is of no value at all.


 
 Come on, this is actually rather fucked up. Slut?  Leave it out eh. 

 Not because we must be nice about this person. Because a it’s actually inaccurate be you are using language that is misogynistic i.e. putting down women of any stripe  for  sexual activity and agency .


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> They weren't living in a refugee camp


See, when she left for ISIS she was living in a refugee camp thus was not responsible for her decisions. 
This is why I will never be as clever as you. No imagination.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> It's hard not to be rude when you're faced with imebeciles who don't realise they are.



If only I were as wise as you eh?


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> What, you think I should let some prick call me a misogynyst and say nothing?



Save your outrage, no one cares what you think.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So you're not saying there is a tension between British values and Islamist values then?



That wasn't the point I was making, no; it was that that question is a topical one.

But, for what it's worth, I don't think the idea of 'British values' takes us anywhere.  My dislike of Islamism isn't because of British values (whatever they're supposed to be), but because of a class-based opposition to fascistic regimes.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> If only I were as wise as you eh?


It's nothing to do with wise (although thank you). It's being dishonest, and you're very good at it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> See, when she left for ISIS she was living in a refugee camp thus was not responsible for her decisions.
> This is why I will never be as clever as you. No imagination.



No, I'm not saying she wasn't responsible for her decisions. I'm saying the MAGA kids aren't suffering or in danger. 

Although if they ever end up in a US jail that would probably change.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2019)

Saul Goodman said:


> Get fucked. Prick. Nothing passive about it at all.


You're throwing around way too much personal abuse. Take a warning and a permanban off this thread.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> That wasn't the point I was making, no; it was that that question is a topical one.
> 
> But, for what it's worth, I don't think the idea of 'British values' takes us anywhere.  My dislike of Islamism isn't because of British values (whatever they're supposed to be), but because of a class-based opposition to fascistic regimes.



Fair enough.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm saying the MAGA kids aren't suffering or in danger.


Bethnal Green is a bit stabby so one could see why this would excuse her wanting to go to Syria.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

editor said:


> You're throwing around way too much personal abuse. Take a warning and a permanban off this thread.


Really? He was called passive-aggressive and a misogynist. He was responding to personal abuse.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Not just an idiot, but an outright liar.



I don't accept that, for the record.


----------



## editor (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? He was called passive-aggressive and a misogynist. He was responding to personal abuse.


Yes really. Take a look at his other posts all over the site today. And then there's the  question of what appears to be two log ins and the fact he may be a returning banned poster. I've answered your point but this is not the thread for this discussion. Please take it to the feedback forum. End of.


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? He was called passive-aggressive and a misogynist. He was responding to personal abuse.



The bloke’s a tool; save your hand wringing...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? He was called passive-aggressive and a misogynist. He was responding to personal abuse.



Is it personal abuse to criticise someone for passive aggression and misogyny? Cos I don't remember the poster who did so calling him a prick.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is it personal abuse to criticise someone for passive aggression and misogyny? Cos I don't remember the poster who did so calling him a prick.


Of course it is. Calling someone a misogynist is a lot worse than calling them a prick. You've called me a racist on this thread. That's a lot worse as well.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2019)

Another interview with an American Woman in the same camp.
US woman 'deeply regrets' joining Isis and wants to return home



> The women cannot leave the camp and are escorted to meetings by armed guards. They have access to food and some aid.



At least the ten page bun fight about whether or not _The Times_ could just bring her back in the back of a Land Rover can now be settled. She's perhaps not a prisoner, in that they'd gladly hand her over to Britain, but they don't seem that keen to just let her roam freely around a war zone. Who'd have guessed it.


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course it is. Calling someone a misogynist is a lot worse than calling them a prick. You've called me a racist on this thread. That's a lot worse as well.



Blah blah, fucking blah - it’s the fucking internet - grow up!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> Blah blah, fucking blah - it’s the fucking internet - grow up!


Maybe you should be told to fuck off from this thread as well, then. Or is it just the ones you try to wind up you want gone?


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe you should be told to fuck off from this thread as well, then. Or is it just the ones you try to wind up you want gone?



Oooooh!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 17, 2019)

The threat or "threat" (your mileage may vary) she would pose in the UK is not as a suicide bomber but as a propagandist. 
However she should have the right to free speech so long as she does not openly incite violence or recruitment for violent groups. 

And the primary concern should be the safety of the new born. Its a measure of how far our society has sunk that his is not the main topic of debate.


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

For what it’s worth, my view, as of today is this; she’s a British citizen. She has the right to be returned to the UK to face the legal system here. Inevitably, if she returns to the UK, she and her child will be assessed under the Children Act - they will both be under considerable scrutiny. She won't be coming back to liberty and opportunities to network with IS. Beyond that, it’s not our business.


----------



## Edie (Feb 17, 2019)

Athos said:


> Why do you think that is?  Wht needs to change to put it right?


Just to throw some suggestions out there (which other women might not agree with) but I think some effort not to be scornful if someone doesn’t know as much, doesn’t know the history, or the theory. So it doesn’t feel like a competition about obscure theory. It often feels like a club you can’t join.

Not as quick to be personal, and nasty personal, that silences people very effectively.

Try to see things from a women’s pov, or think about what a woman’s concerns might be about a certain situation?

Really hope these aren’t stupid or stereotyped things to say and just speaking for myself obviously.


----------



## Athos (Feb 17, 2019)

Edie said:


> Just to throw some suggestions out there (which other women might not agree with) but I think some effort not to be scornful if someone doesn’t know as much, doesn’t know the history, or the theory. So it doesn’t feel like a competition about obscure theory. It often feels like a club you can’t join.
> 
> Not as quick to be personal, and nasty personal, that silences people very effectively.
> 
> ...



Makes sense.  Would be a big change, though!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 17, 2019)

Edie said:


> Steady.
> 
> Its not an odd comment.
> 
> ...



The row across social media is about culture, the concept of the nation state, borders and free movement, state and other responses to terror and many other things. There is a gendered element to it but it’s much wider than that imho


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

Edie said:


> Just to throw some suggestions out there (which other women might not agree with) but I think some effort not to be scornful if someone doesn’t know as much, doesn’t know the history, or the theory. So it doesn’t feel like a competition about obscure theory. It often feels like a club you can’t join.
> 
> Not as quick to be personal, and nasty personal, that silences people very effectively.
> 
> ...


Let's just remind ourselves were the original misogyny play was made here (page 8):


tim said:


> She's 19 and she ran away at 15. We as a society seem to have no problem in  in extending compassion to adults who committed crimes while serving in the British army and virtually everyone involved in the  violence, however brutal or sectarian in Northern Ireland has been let off. Why does she merit being treated differently?






			
				weepiper said:
			
		

> They're men.



Simple as that. The reason British army soldiers are treated differently to this scumbag who volunteered to join a murderous rape cult and have their babies, is because she's a woman and the soldiers are men! 

For fucking real? 

Play that card, that way, and you're going to get pushback.


----------



## Edie (Feb 17, 2019)

Smokeandsteam said:


> The row across social media is about culture, the concept of the nation state, borders and free movement, state and other responses to terror and many other things. There is a gendered element to it but it’s much wider than that imho


Sure. But it seems to me that the sex of this person is the lens through which the rest is viewed. The fact she’s a woman, left to marry a fighter, was pregnant, a baby is now involved, is very much at the heart of it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Of course it is. Calling someone a misogynist is a lot worse than calling them a prick. You've called me a racist on this thread. That's a lot worse as well.



That sounds a bit like the NUS definition of personal abuse to be honest, whereby you're not allowed to make criticisms of someones' position and method. I don't consider genuine attempts at challenging racism to be a form of abuse.

Having said that, I don't think you're a racist, and I'm sorry you're upset mate, genuinely, so I went back to check the post. From what I remember this is the post right?



SpackleFrog said:


> She was 15.
> 
> She was born in 2000.
> 
> ...



I didn't call you a racist. And for clarity to everyone on Urban I don't think LBJ is a racist. 

I did say I thought you were 'slacker' on your anti racism on this thread. To be fair, I was just a bit blown away by the thread in general and I didn't explain this vague comment. 

What I meant was that I was really disgusted that given we all know that one of the things Daesh have leveraged in their grooming of disaffected youth in the West is the racism that Muslims experience in the West. I'm just sad that there's all this "she knew what she was getting in to" type stuff without any thought for why it might be she might not have any empathy or sympathy for non-Muslims and be attracted to Daesh in the first place. 

I'm not saying that she did what she did because she was a victim of racism growing up, I don't know anything about her and don't really wish to; her personal story is being projected at us but she's one person among many and we're discussing her as an individual without the relevant info to do so and without thinking about the context of all this. Which I don't see the point in. 

Sorry for picking on you too, plenty of others said similar, probably just did it cos we argue a lot on the Brexit threads. 

PS I still think your support for Britain's continued membership of a white supremacist organisation is unacceptable though.


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Let's just remind ourselves were the original misogyny play was made here (page 8):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why are you so angry with her? Your language is fascinating btw...


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Bethnal Green is a bit stabby so one could see why this would excuse her wanting to go to Syria.



We're talking about how people reacted on the two threads, not about the two cases.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> We're talking about how people reacted on the two threads, not about the two cases.


Yes everyone piled in to criticise one case and in the other some (you) tried to claim Bethnal Green was a refugee camp thus the behaviour was excusable.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> Yes everyone piled in to criticise one case and in the other some (you) tried to claim Bethnal Green was a refugee camp thus the behaviour was excusable.



Just to be clear, I'm saying the refugee camp she is in now is a refugee camp. Not Bethnal Green.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> Why are you so angry with her?


She went out of her way to push that agenda when it wasn't on the table at that point and the statement is spectacularly offensive. It's up there with Stupid Frank's 'British soldiers are as bad as Isis'. I won't speak for others but I'm very confident that her being a woman is the least of people's gripes here. If it were a man I would be saying precisely the same thing ... let him fucking rot.


> Your language is fascinating btw...


Which language?


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 17, 2019)

She's currently the most (in)famous but there are apparently about 20 UK born women and children and 6 male fighters in Kurdish hands, the Kurds don't want them which is understandable since they have limited resources. It cannot be beyond the wit of even this government to strike a deal with the Kurds whereby they slap the lot in handcuffs and haul their sorry asses into Iraqi Kurdistan to somewhere a RAF transport can go and get them.
Clearly they're the sort of people we want back even less than Gary Glitter but they are still UK citizens and thus our problem whether we want them or not. Once we get them here then the courts not
the press or social media will decide their fates.
She seems a pretty awful person to me and I wouldn't have shed any tears if like her friend she had died in the fighting but she's still a British citizen and entitled to a fair trial in a courtroom. It's not a matter
of whether she deserves one but that she is entitled to a trial by our rules, all our criticism of Daesh is based on the statement that we are civilized and they're not. So it behooves us to act civilized no matter how little we want to.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 17, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> She's currently the most (in)famous but there are apparently about 20 UK born women and children and 6 male fighters in Kurdish hands, the Kurds don't want them which is understandable since they have limited resources. It cannot be beyond the wit of even this government to strike a deal with the Kurds whereby they slap the lot in handcuffs and haul their sorry asses into Iraqi Kurdistan to somewhere a RAF transport can go and get them.
> Clearly they're the sort of people we want back even less than Gary Glitter but they are still UK citizens and thus our problem whether we want them or not. Once we get them here then the courts not
> the press or social media will decide their fates.
> She seems a pretty awful person to me and I wouldn't have shed any tears if like her friend she had died in the fighting but she's still a British citizen and entitled to a fair trial in a courtroom. It's not a matter
> of whether she deserves one but that she is entitled to a trial by our rules, all our criticism of Daesh is based on the statement that we are civilized and they're not. So it behooves us to act civilized no matter how little we want to.




Sod the RAF, get Cardiff City’s air transport division to bring ‘em back.


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She went out of her way to push that agenda when it wasn't on the table at that point and the statement is spectacularly offensive. It's up their with Stupid Frank's 'British soldiers are as bad as Isis'. I won't speak for others but I'm very confident that her being a woman is the least of people's gripes here. If it were a man I would be saying precisely the same thing ... let him fucking rot.
> 
> Which language?



“this scumbag who volunteered to join a murderous rape cult and have their babies, is because she's a woman and the soldiers are men!”

So you’re not judging her on her womanhood - “least of people’s gripes”? Seems to be at the root of yours...

dress it up how you like.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> “this scumbag who volunteered to join a murderous rape cult and have their babies, is because she's a woman and the soldiers are men!”
> 
> So you’re not judging her on her womanhood - “least of people’s gripes”? Seems to be at the root of yours...


Eh? 

It's exactly what she's done. If it were a bloke I might have said 'volunteered to join a murderous rape cult and kill Yazidi children'. But criticise a woman for volunteering to travel to Syria with the express aim of having jihadi kids to populate this evil "state" and we're all misogynists.

Do me a favour.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> ...And the primary concern should be the safety of the new born. Its a measure of how far our society has sunk that his is not the main topic of debate.



I disagree - I think the safety of a newborn baby in some hellhole on the Syria-Iraq border should be _a _concern, but should it trump our concern for any random Syrian newborn in the same camp, or the camp 30 miles down the road, who's mother wasn't IS? should it trump our concern for the kids of the family she'll eventually live next to if she's brought back to the UK?


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Eh?
> 
> It's exactly what she's done. If it were a bloke I might have said 'volunteered to join a murderous rape cult and kill Yazidi children'. But criticise a woman for volunteering to travel to Syria with the express aim of having jihadi kids to populate this evil "state" and we're all misogynysts.
> 
> Do me a favour.



No favours due.

If she were he...

it’s not about criticising women, or issues of misogyny per se, it’s more subtle than that, which is why you don’t get it.

But you crack on with you bluff and bluster, Mr Outraged


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I disagree - I think the safety of a newborn baby in some hellhole on the Syria-Iraq border should be _a _concern, but should it trump our concern for any random Syrian newborn in the same camp, or the camp 30 miles down the road, who's mother wasn't IS? should it trump our concern for the kids of the family she'll eventually live next to if she's brought back to the UK?


The UK produced her, so she and her baby should be 'our problem', imo. MickiQ makes a good point and a sensible suggestion if there are a bunch of them there whose identities can be established. Quite right I'm sure that the Kurds would be very glad to be shot of them. Another consideration, perhaps: the UK produced these problem people, and it would be a good thing to do to offer to take them away.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2019)

I think it's fair to say ISIS are a bit mysognistic at this point.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I disagree - I think the safety of a newborn baby in some hellhole on the Syria-Iraq border should be _a _concern, but should it trump our concern for any random Syrian newborn in the same camp, or the camp 30 miles down the road, who's mother wasn't IS? should it trump our concern for the kids of the family she'll eventually live next to if she's brought back to the UK?



That's a little bit whataboutary isn't it? 

Given that the only British citizens in the camps are people who went out there to join Daesh and that we can be absolutely certain the UK authorities won't give a fuck about anyone else there. It's not as if the govt will save another baby instead. 

As for the kids in Britain, we've done done to death that she'll be prosecuted, imprisoned, assessed, questioned, social services, monitoring, all the rest of it. Every month violent offenders leave prison and go back into residential communities, they might be a risk but that's not a valid reason to deny their rights.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> it’s not about criticising women, or issues of misogyny per se, it’s more subtle than that ...



Lol! 



tim said:


> She's 19 and she ran away at 15. We as a society seem to have no problem in  in extending compassion to adults who committed crimes while serving in the British army and virtually everyone involved in the  violence, however brutal or sectarian in Northern Ireland has been let off. Why does she merit being treated differently?





weepiper said:


> They're men.



Is it more subtle than that^^^?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The UK produced her, so she and her baby should be 'our problem', imo. MickiQ makes a good point and a sensible suggestion if there are a bunch of them there whose identities can be established. Quite right I'm sure that the Kurds would be very glad to be shot of them. Another consideration, perhaps: the UK produced these problem people, and it would be a good thing to do to offer to take them away.



See, I'm much more persuaded by the idea that the UK has an obligation to the Kurds/Syrians to deal with British citizens who went there for a spot of slavery and mayhem than I am by arguments about either the rights of British citizens or the obligations the UK has towards those citizens - however I would ask when this responsibility for a 'former citizen/resident' ends: when they've been gone 5 years? 10 years? 30 years?


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Lol
> 
> Is it more subtle than that^^^



You love a gender binary, don’t you? I’m not remotely interested in your answer btw...

You’re dull as fuck when it comes to the interesting stuff x


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

abstract1 said:
			
		

> You’re dull as fuck when it comes to the interesting stuff x



Sounds like you've been talking to my wife


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Sounds like you've been talking to my wife



Even she was bored by you - sorry.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 17, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> Even she was bored by you - sorry.


 We all have our crosses to bear. I'm hers.

Of course, I've been oppressing her for 22 years!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> We all have our crosses to bear. I'm hers.



And ours.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> And ours.



E2A: Damn. Should have said "She went into it with her eyes open..."


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The UK produced her, so she and her baby should be 'our problem', imo. MickiQ makes a good point and a sensible suggestion if there are a bunch of them there whose identities can be established. Quite right I'm sure that the Kurds would be very glad to be shot of them. Another consideration, perhaps: the UK produced these problem people, and it would be a good thing to do to offer to take them away.


And Holland. Dad was a Dutch IS murderer don’t forget. Should the KCT have a responsibility to go and get them?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 17, 2019)

A380 said:


> Should the KFC have a responsibility to go and get them?


Aye send in the Colonel, bring that baby home


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's a little bit whataboutary isn't it?...



No, I don't think it is.

If this person escapes some unpleasant fate at the hands of the Kurds/Syrians - even if she goes to prison in the UK for a period - that's not much of a deterrent for slavery and an accessory to genocide. The re-emergence of that slavery and genocide isn't likely to happen in the UK, but in the failed states of Iraq and Syria, IS re-emerging as a territorial power is already being talked about.

That random newborn in the camps who's mother wasn't in IS may be on the sharp end of that lack of deterrence.

If she returns to the UK, even if she does 20 years, she'll eventually live next to someone, or in the same street, and she'll have exciting stories of The Caliphate, a limited price to pay for failure, and a eventually she'll have a pupil/victim.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I think the safety of a newborn baby in some hellhole on the Syria-Iraq border should be _a _concern, but should it trump our concern for any random Syrian newborn in the same camp, or the camp 30 miles down the road, who's mother wasn't IS?


It's not an abhorrent idea that countries that are in a position to do something about it don't leave their citizens to fester in refugee camps when they are there through no fault of their own. Whether the UK should assume responsibility for all babies in Syria might be something to write to your MP about. But the question is about whether and how the UK should uphold the rights of its citizens, rather than about the unfairness that not everyone has those rights.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Aye send in the Colonel, bring that baby home


I’m not sure he was a real colonel...


----------



## IC3D (Feb 17, 2019)

Surely there are internet dating sites in Syria?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> No, I don't think it is.
> 
> If this person escapes some unpleasant fate at the hands of the Kurds/Syrians - even if she goes to prison in the UK for a period - that's not much of a deterrent for slavery and an accessory to genocide. The re-emergence of that slavery and genocide isn't likely to happen in the UK, but in the failed states of Iraq and Syria, IS re-emerging as a territorial power is already being talked about.
> 
> ...



Are you saying we need a stronger deterrent to discourage people in Britain from travelling to Syria and joining Daesh? And if so, do you think a 'deterrent' is likely to have an effect on kids who've decided that might be something they want to do? 

And on a possibly/possibly not related question, are you saying 20 years in prison wouldn't be a sufficient punishment in your eyes? Bearing in mind that we don't know much at this stage about the extent to which she may have been involved in enslavement and murder.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

A380 said:


> I’m not sure he was a real colonel...



Nah, he was a Commander


----------



## kebabking (Feb 17, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are you saying we need a stronger deterrent to discourage people in Britain from travelling to Syria and joining Daesh? And if so, do you think a 'deterrent' is likely to have an effect on kids who've decided that might be something they want to do?
> 
> And on a possibly/possibly not related question, are you saying 20 years in prison wouldn't be a sufficient punishment in your eyes? Bearing in mind that we don't know much at this stage about the extent to which she may have been involved in enslavement and murder.



I take the view that actively supporting - and that includes moving there - an organisation that is openly genocidal and all the rest of it, should carry a whole life sentence. I'm rather more relaxed about people who get caught up in something they don't understand, get there and quickly decide that it's not for them, but this one is intelligent, untepentant, and she stayed for four years. For her, it's a whole life sentence, both as punishment for her, and protection for the rest of us.

As for what such a threat/deterrent might do for those considering it - ideally they'll think very fucking hard about going, and perhaps ask themselves why society is so hostile to those who go overseas to support such groups. If not, and they go, and some time later they think they might fall into UK hands, then (with luck) they'll have the good manners to top themselves rather than spend 70 years in Belmarsh.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I take the view that actively supporting - and that includes moving there - an organisation that is openly genocidal and all the rest of it, should carry a whole life sentence. I'm rather more relaxed about people who get caught up in something they don't understand, get there and quickly decide that it's not for them, but this one is intelligent, untepentant, and she stayed for four years. For her, it's a whole life sentence, both as punishment for her, and protection for the rest of us.
> 
> As for what such a threat/deterrent might do for those considering it - ideally they'll think very fucking hard about going, and perhaps ask themselves why society is so hostile to those who go overseas to support such groups. If not, and they go, and some time later they think they might fall into UK hands, then (with luck) they'll have the good manners to top themselves rather than spend 70 years in Belmarsh.



Fair enough, at least you're fairly clear and putting it calmly.

Me, I think I need to know more than I do before I'm ready to say she gets life.


----------



## A380 (Feb 17, 2019)




----------



## eoin_k (Feb 17, 2019)

Can anyone suggest a precedent for repatriating the mother?

People of all nationalities get extradited to face charges, but extraditing her from Syria for her activities in that country seems.... unusual if not impossible.  In any case you can't claim a right to extradition. It's a matter for prosecutors to decide on.

States also deport people all the time, but that is not Britain's role here, and part of the problem is the absence of a state with the means to deport her.

People also get repatriated at the discretion of their Government, but not generally when they are affiliated to a proscribed organization. I'm not claiming it's a question of membership or active criminality, but shear hostility to the British state. This is not the same as an anarchist earthquake victim. Her hostility to the state that she is making a claim on is intrinsically bound up with the reasons why she's there.

The birth of the child now complicates matters further, but it's still an odd case.... when has any other state met such a claim? Genuine question.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 17, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Can anyone suggest a precedent for repatriating the mother?
> 
> People of all nationalities get extradited to face charges, but extraditing her from Syria for her activities in that country seems.... unusual if not impossible.  In any case you can't claim a right to extradition. It's a matter for prosecutors to decide on.
> 
> ...



I don't think the British state will attempt to extradite her. At some point she'll end up either in a state that wishes to deport her to here, or charge her, or she'll reach a British consulate and request to return, if indeed that's still what she wants.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 17, 2019)

Well, I missed a good few pages of the fun, but have to say on catching up that my mind is now changing on the matter.



Spoiler



What if we mixed the cheese and beans together and *then* put them on the potato?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 18, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think the British state will attempt to extradite her. At some point she'll end up either in a state that wishes to deport her to here, or charge her, or she'll reach a British consulate and request to return, if indeed that's still what she wants.


Sure. But what precedent is there for granting such a request? People clearly get extricated from hairy situations all the time, but not generally in circumstances intricately bound up with their ongoing hostility to the state in question.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 18, 2019)

Have barely regarded this story. Seems a lot of fear and outrage over “stupid impressionable young person does rather revolting and stupid thing”

Meanwhile the government fully supports the huge extremist massacre in Yemen and not a single politician has ever asked May why she lifted Control Orders on the group linked to the Manchester bomber.

Let’s not pretend that our establishment gives a flying fuck about this broad issue. They do strictly posture and disinfo.


----------



## Combustible (Feb 18, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> She seems a pretty awful person to me and I wouldn't have shed any tears if like her friend she had died in the fighting but she's still a British citizen and entitled to a fair trial in a courtroom. It's not a matter
> of whether she deserves one but that she is entitled to a trial by our rules, all our criticism of Daesh is based on the statement that we are civilized and they're not.



A British citizen is not generally entitled to a fair trial  if they are apprehended in a jurisdiction where fair trials are not practiced. The government may choose to intervene on their behalf, but generally their position is that they will not interfere with local legal processes/laws even if they are not fair. So I don't see that the government has an obligation to intervene on her behalf, but obviously she has the right to enter the UK, receive the normal consular assistance, and a trial under British law if she makes it back to the UK.

But I agree that if the Kurdish authorities want her gone, the government should work with them to bring her and other British IS members to the UK. Whatever burden ex IS members are on the UK and other western countries is miniscule compared to the burden on those in that area of Syria, who also have a lot less resources to deal with them than western states.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 18, 2019)

i think there are pressures that are denied and unacknowledged. Banned even. Now, claiming competence and determination does not equate to it. I don't think leaving such a society makes one a fanatic. Furthermore (I may have missed a beat) do we expect this women to denounce IS in her present circumstances. Has she not realistically already put her neck on the line? So I suppose when she is inevitably dead we can say: not one of us, least deserving, and just one of them.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

Humberto said:


> ...do we expect this women to denounce IS in her present circumstances?



She has already denounced them.  She just hasn't denounced what they stand for.


----------



## Humberto (Feb 18, 2019)

And how realistic would it be to do so I wonder?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 18, 2019)

Begum has accused Isis of corruption, described its use of torture and concluded that it no longer deserves to win. However, while another woman in the same predicament has expressed regret, she has explicitly refused to do so. She feels that the experience has made her tougher and a stronger person.The journalist who spoke to her said something along the lines of "Let us be in no doubt. She is indoctrinated in this ideology."


----------



## MrSki (Feb 18, 2019)

When she says there is no evidence of ... It comes across to me as being a bit coached.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 18, 2019)

MrSki said:


> When she says there is no evidence of ... It comes across to me as being a bit coached.



How so? If I was coaching someone in this situation, I'd suggest that "I didn't do anything" sounds a lot more innocent than "You can't prove that I did anything".


----------



## LDC (Feb 18, 2019)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Seems a lot of fear and outrage over “stupid impressionable young person does rather revolting and stupid thing”



I'd say putting it down as 'revolting and stupid' is somewhat underplaying what she did and supported, and by her own admission still supports.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

She, in her small way, helped kill the revolution. For me there is no coming back from that. I don't care about what happens to her legally. If the law says she comes in then she comes in, if the law says the home sec can block this then he blocks it. Whatever. The wider point for me is the ongoing harm scum like this have done to so many more people and have ensured that it will continue to happen for at least another few decades. Who will ever now dare rise en masse against assad?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 18, 2019)

I've watched the sky news video again. Initially, I thought she seemed cheeky af saying that people ought to feel sorry for her. But watching it again, she seems utterly broken and not very bright at all. Esp when she saying things like she had a good time  She's utterly out of touch with how a right thinking person might view her and the journalist really had to lead her to making the apology to her family.

I don't think the Kurds should have to put up with her and others like her and I agree with what another poster said about that being a more compelling argument for bringing her back than the stuff about her and her baby being British. She absolutely needs to face the consequences of what she's done.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

Thimble Queen said:


> She absolutely needs to face the consequences of what she's done.



She is. Literally.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 18, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'd say putting it down as 'revolting and stupid' is somewhat underplaying what she did and supported, and by her own admission still supports.



Also stupid impressionable young person again. Young people aren't stupid. Really pisses me off this.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

The pkk want to drag this out as long as possible btw. The longer that they have western focus on them the longer they have to argue their case, avoid turkish attacks, deflect from their ongoing complicity - no, not complicity, integration is the word - with the regime as good solid anti-extremists, look like humans etc Might buy them a few years.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 18, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> How so? If I was coaching someone in this situation, I'd suggest that "I didn't do anything" sounds a lot more innocent than "You can't prove that I did anything".


Just my opinion. I will bow to your legal superiority.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 18, 2019)

Thimble Queen said:


> I've watched the sky news video again. Initially, I thought she seemed cheeky af saying that people ought to feel sorry for her. But watching it again, she seems utterly broken and not very bright at all. Esp when she saying things like she had a good time  She's utterly out of touch with how a right thinking person might view her and the journalist really had to lead her to making the apology to her family.
> 
> I don't think the Kurds should have to put up with her and others like her and I agree with what another poster said about that being a more compelling argument for bringing her back than the stuff about her and her baby being British. She absolutely needs to face the consequences of what she's done.


The interview was done just hours after giving birth. I am surprised that Sky did it then to be honest.


----------



## tim (Feb 18, 2019)

MrSki said:


> The interview was done just hours after giving birth. I am surprised that Sky did it then to be honest.



Why? They're journalists looking for a headline grabbing story. How else would you expect them to behave?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

Just them alone playing a one-sided game then you think? Really?


----------



## tim (Feb 18, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Can anyone suggest a precedent for repatriating the mother?
> 
> People of all nationalities get extradited to face charges, but extraditing her from Syria for her activities in that country seems.... unusual if not impossible.  In any case you can't claim a right to extradition. It's a matter for prosecutors to decide on.
> 
> ...



As she wants to return to the UK, it wouldn't be extradition.


----------



## xenon (Feb 18, 2019)

Has the crowd funder to go and get her started yet?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

xenon said:


> Has the crowd funder to go and get her started yet?


It's up to a tenner. Tim and Spacklefrog did five quid each.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 18, 2019)

MrSki said:


> The interview was done just hours after giving birth. I am surprised that Sky did it then to be honest.



Yeah I know. I don't think she came across much better in the Times interview tbf.

Why would you be surprised at the timing? It's pretty much perfect from a journalistic perspective.


----------



## MrSki (Feb 18, 2019)

Thimble Queen said:


> Yeah I know. I don't think she came across much better in the Times interview tbf.
> 
> Why would you be surprised at the timing? It's pretty much perfect from a journalistic perspective.


Well it's a scoop but can you be sure the interviewee knows what is going on? I have never given birth so can't really comment but would be interested to hear from those that have.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 18, 2019)

tim said:


> As she wants to return to the UK, it woldn't extradition.


That is exactly why I wrote: "You can't claim a right to extradition. It's [i.e whether or not to apply for an extradition warrant] a matter for prosecutors to decide on." [This isn't even an option here, as she's not held by a recognised state never mind one with an extradition agreement.] I only mentioned extradition as one of a number of mechanisms used by states to transfer people internationally.

Voluntary repatriation is clearly the relevant mechanism in this case. In certain circumstances, states exercise a discretion to do this, but it's not something that any nationals are generally entitled to claim as a right, so far as I'm aware. I am genuinely curious to know if anyone can think of a precedent for any state anywhere ever voluntarily repatriating a subject, whose reason for requiring repatriation is their involvement with a violently hostile political project, for which they remain unremorseful?

This might not settle the case, but if nobody can cite a precedent, it calls into question the notion that she currently deserves any particular treatment as a right by virtue of her British citizenship. However we regard her as an individual, we should be wary of her case setting a precedent for the state striping subjects of their citizenship for political reasons, especially when this would leave them stateless, but that's a different matter.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

She is, of course, free to live in assad's democratic secular syria.


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 18, 2019)

Journalists clearly wouldn't be getting such good access to her if it didn't suit the agenda of the Kurds. This also serves the agenda of Isis pretty well, too, even if she seems detached from the organisation itself. What better story to further polarise European countries along the lines of religion/race/immigration status?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's up to a tenner. Tim and Spacklefrog did five quid each.



Still not reading any of my posts then.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Still not reading any of my posts then.


Don't worry, I'm giving them all the attention they deserve.


----------



## cybershot (Feb 18, 2019)

Isis teenage bride says Manchester Arena bombing was 'justified' because of the Syria airstrikes


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2019)

eoin_k said:


> Journalists clearly wouldn't be getting such good access to her if it didn't suit the agenda of the Kurds. *This also serves the agenda of Isis pretty well*, too, even if she seems detached from the organisation itself. What better story to further polarise European countries along the lines of religion/race/immigration status?


Not so sure about that. She looks and sounds defeated and not a little lost. Doesn't that just emphasise the scale of their defeat?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

cybershot said:


> Isis teenage bride says Manchester Arena bombing was 'justified' because of the Syria airstrikes



It's like she's on some kind of psychological warfare mission.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 18, 2019)

48 pages... blimey!


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

cybershot said:


> Isis teenage bride says Manchester Arena bombing was 'justified' because of the Syria airstrikes


She went to the SpookyFrank school of logic.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

Interestingly, she also seems to confirm having watched beheading videos before she left the Uk to volunteer for IS, giving lie to the idea that she might ot have realised the brutal nature of the regime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She went to the SpookyFrank school of logic.


she should have gone to an institution of public relations


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 18, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so sure about that. She looks and sounds defeated and not a little lost. Doesn't that just emphasise the scale of their defeat?



As a territorial 'Caliphate', Deash might look like a spent force for the time being, but as an insurgency, it seems a bit complacent to write them off. What plays into their hands, in this case, is the polarising effect it has in Europe. This fits in with a strategy of undermining the grey zone in which Muslims and others coexist peacefully. However European Governments deal with the likes of Begum, from leaving them to fester where they are to prosecuting, incarcerating and surveilling them in Europe, it has the potential to create both increased hostility towards the local Muslim population in general and further grievances among potential Daesh supporters.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 18, 2019)

She'd be well advised to stop giving interviews.  Everything she says is causing more anger towards her.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 18, 2019)

Land is irrelevant now that Daesh / IS has established itself as a global brand. Land was needed for that but the real territory they want, and have, is cultural.

(apropos of fuck all really, I was musing on how this woman is part of that process now as much as she ever was of the actual land-based process there on the ground)


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

Athos said:


> Interestingly, she also seems to confirm having watched beheading videos before she left the Uk to volunteer for IS, giving lie to the idea that she might ot have realised the brutal nature of the regime.


Tbf, she's only confirmed what everyone already knew. As mentioned by someone before, she was a 15 year old with access to the internet and an extreme interest in ISIS. In the months and years before she took off there were plenty of beheadings going viral as well as that Jordanian pilot getting torched alive in the cage. Any suggestion that she somehow missed those is beyond absurd. 

She saw them and decided to join in.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Tbf, she's only confirmed what everyone already knew. As mentioned by someone before, she was a 15 year old with access to the internet and an extreme interest in ISIS. In the months and years before she took off there were plenty of beheadings going viral as well as that Jordanian pilot getting torched alive in the cage. Any suggestion that she somehow missed those is beyond absurd.
> 
> She saw them and decided to join in.


There were plenty of others that were not publicised that were easily accessible for those interested or prepared to do a few minutes digging and that were much much worse than the horrifying things you mention. I think it would be preposterous to suggest that she did not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 18, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> Land is irrelevant now that Daesh / IS has established itself as a global brand. Land was needed for that but the real territory they want, and have, is cultural.
> 
> (apropos of fuck all really, I was musing on how this woman is part of that process now as much as she ever was of the actual land-based process there on the ground)


Again, not sure about that either. While I agree that they are not done ideologically, surely the point was and is to build a new Islamic state. And to do that requires conquest and land. The project was the building of a new society. The conquests constituted proof that they were doing God's work. That project, for the moment at least, has collapsed.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 18, 2019)

I agree the land-based project has collapsed, that's self-evident. I expect it's considered a temporary setback at worst, at best grist to future mills._ They hated us so much they destroyed us,_ of course, _God still wants this_, naturally; several decades later people such as this will be elders, encouraging the kids of their time with all the _I was there when_s.**

** assuming things don't improve greatly in the next few decades, and why would they?


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Tbf, she's only confirmed what everyone already knew. As mentioned by someone before, she was a 15 year old with access to the internet and an extreme interest in ISIS. In the months and years before she took off there were plenty of beheadings going viral as well as that Jordanian pilot getting torched alive in the cage. Any suggestion that she somehow missed those is beyond absurd.
> 
> She saw them and decided to join in.



I know.  People were still pursuing that ridiculous line, though.  At least she's finally put that to bed, even for those credulous fools.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

mojo pixy said:


> I agree the land-based project has collapsed, that's self-evident. I expect it's considered a temporary setback at worst, at best grist to future mills._ They hated us so much they destroyed us,_ of course, _God still wants this_, naturally; several decades later people such as this will be elders, encouraging the kids of their time with all the _I was there when_s.**
> 
> ** assuming things don't improve greatly in the next few decades, and why would they?


Yes. This is only starting. The disgusting re-imposition of shia dominance in Iraq has already got the flame lit for the next round.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Yes. This is only starting. The disgusting re-imposition of shia dominance in Iraq has already got the flame lit for the next round.



Meant to quote. Yes, IS are a tool and one that has not come to the end of its usefulness. Whatever happens to this woman and her poor baby, it will be used as a weapon by all and sundry.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 18, 2019)

copliker said:


> I suggest that people, especially those of the 'ISIS - not that bad really' bent, should give Nadia Murad and RBSS a listen. I remember when kidnapped yazidis were being mocked by Assadists who were accusing them of being a meme to justify imperialist intervention and so on.
> 
> View attachment 162156
> 
> ...




I hadn't seen that interview before, it's very distressing.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 18, 2019)

I'd prefer it if, say, a traumatised 19 year old Yazidi woman with baby who would like to come to Britain could come here instead.


----------



## Thimble Queen (Feb 18, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I hadn't seen that interview before, it's very distressing.



I've just watched it now. It's one of the hardest things I've watched in a while.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

Begum interview just now in a message to the Foreign Secretary; "he has no proof that I'm a threat ... other than the fact that I was in ISIS"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

I don't think he needs it. You will likely be charged with something like purposes connected to the commission of preparation of terrorism under the new PTA and knowledge of this would be enough to block. This what british volunteers for the PKK have been charged with just for going to turkey.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I don't think he needs it. You will likely be charged with something like purposes connected to the commission of preparation of terrorism under the new PTA and knowledge of this would be enough to block. This what british volunteers for the PKK have been charged with just for going to turkey.



Potentially, she could be looking at any one (or more) of the following, depending on what evidence there is:

Preparation of Terrorist Acts (Terrorism Act 2006): it is an offence for a person to engage in the preparation of acts of terrorism or assist others in the preparation of them. The maximum sentence is life in jail.

Collection of information (Terrorism Act 2000): it is unlawful to gather information likely to be useful to someone in committing or preparing an act of terrorism or to possess a document or record containing such information. Maximum sentence: ten years’ imprisonment.

Membership of a proscribed organisation (Terrorism Act 2000): Islamic State was banned by the government in 2014 and there are offences of belonging to, professing support for or inviting support for banned organisations. Maximum sentence: ten years in prison.

Encouragement of terrorism (Terrorism Act 2006): it is illegal to make statements likely to be understood as “a direct or indirect encouragement or inducement to the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism”. Maximum sentence: seven years in jail.

Terrorist training (Terrorism Act 2006): it is against the law to provide or receive terrorist training and the maximum sentence is life. Attending a location where training is given carries a maximum jail term of ten years.

Failing to disclose information (Terrorism Act 2000): it is an offence if someone does not inform the police if he/she believes that someone they know is in preparation of acts of terrorism. Maximum sentence: five years in prison.

Terrorism for the purposes both acts is defined in the 2000 act:

_'*1 Terrorism: interpretation.*

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

(4)In this section—
(a)“action” includes action outside the United Kingdom,
(b)a reference to any person or to property is a reference to any person, or to property, wherever situated,
(c)a reference to the public includes a reference to the public of a country other than the United Kingdom, and
(d)“the government” means the government of the United Kingdom, of a Part of the United Kingdom or of a country other than the United Kingdom.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.'_


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

That's if she get's here - i was using her likelihood to be charged with any/all of the above to be used to stop her coming back before any charging could happen.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> That's if she get's here - i was using her likelihood to be charged with any/all of the above to be used to stop her coming back before any charging could happen.



In the sense that the threat of prosecution might deter her from wanting to come back, you mean?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

Athos said:


> In the sense that the threat of prosecution might deter her from wanting to come back, you mean?


In terms of the home sec putting exclusion order  - or whatever is relevant of UK citizens - on her.  Including stripping of citizenship. They banned ballotelli's pig from entering ffs.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> In terms of the home sec putting exclusion order  - or whatever is relevant of UK citizens - on her.  Including stripping of citizenship. They banned ballotelli's pig from entering ffs.



I'm not sure he can do so lawfully.  But, perhaps the possibility of prosecution in the UK might lead her to apply for citizenship of e.g. Bangladesh or the Netherlands (as her son is a Dutch citizen); if she were to be sucessful, then she could be stripped of her British citizenship.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

They've been taking citizenship away quietly for some time. It literally is the same test as exclusion orders. Not conducive to the public good.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> They've been taking citizenship away quietly for some time. It literally is the same test as exclusion orders. Not conducive to the public good.



That's for dual citizens (which is what I was getting at if she applied to for citizenship of another country).  Unless and until she does, she can't be lawfully be stripped of British citizenship (as it would make her stateless).


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> They've been taking citizenship away quietly for some time. It literally is the same test as exclusion orders. Not conducive to the public good.


This is the stripping of British citizenship of dual nationals though.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 18, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure he can do so lawfully.  But, perhaps the possibility of prosecution in the UK might lead her to apply for citizenship of e.g. Bangladesh or the Netherlands (as her son is a Dutch citizen); if she were to be sucessful, then she could be stripped of her British citizenship.


The baby is automatically a Dutch citizen through its father providing he was married to the mother at the time of birth assuming the Netherlands recognises a Daesh marriage as legal, If it doesn't then
the baby is a Dutch citizen providing the father acknowledges the child is his  to the Dutch authorities before the child turns 7. 
She would have to live in the Netherlands for 5 years as the wife of a Dutch citizen before she could apply for Dutch citizenship and it's a safe bet they probably don't want her.
Assuming that Dad is probably going to eventually end up spending the rest of his life in a Dutch pokey then it's not likely they will ever see each other again, but then we're not talking about breaking up Romeo and Juliet here. I'm  pretty certain if I asked my own teenage daughter to draw up a list of desirable qualities in her future husband that the list would be longer than just "Speaks English"


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

Ok i get what you are saying now. Does that mean that all the cases since then - i. e these beatles pricks - are under the dual nationality thing? Is Deprivation of British nationality a diff thing? This is not an area i should have waded into but this seems to suggest not:

Part 1: Deprivation
Deprivation of citizenship under section 40 of the British Nationality Act
1981 on grounds of fraud, false representation or concealment of
material fact or on grounds of conduciveness to the public good

A. General Information
55.2 Introduction
55.2.1 These Instructions explain the application by the United
Kingdom Border Agency of the legal power to deprive a
person of British citizenship under section 40 of the British
Nationality Act 1981 (‘The 1981 Act’).
55.3 The Power to Deprive Citizenship
55.3.1 General Power
55.3.1.1 Under s.40 of the 1981 Act, as amended by the
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002
from 1 April 2003 and by the Immigration, Asylum
and Nationality Act 2006 from 16 June 2006, any
British citizen, British overseas territories citizen,
British Overseas citizen, British National
(Overseas), British protected person or British
subject may, by Order, be deprived of his or her
citizenship or status if the Home Secretary is
satisfied that:

a. it would be conducive to the public good
to deprive the person of his or her British
nationality, and that s/he would not become
stateless as a result of the deprivation
(ss.40(2) and (4)); or

edit: ah _become stateless_...


----------



## LDC (Feb 18, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> She'd be well advised to stop giving interviews.  Everything she says is causing more anger towards her.



She needs some good PR. Where's Max Clifford when someone needs him? Oh.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Ok i get what you are saying now. Does that mean that all the cases since then - i. e these beatles pricks - are under the dual nationality thing? Is Deprivation of British nationality a diff thing? This is not an area i should have waded into but this seems to suggest not:
> 
> Part 1: Deprivation
> Deprivation of citizenship under section 40 of the British Nationality Act
> ...



You need to look at subsection 4, which says: _'The Secretary of State may not make an order under subsection (2) if he is satisfied that the order would make a person stateless.'
_
The exception being that set out in subsection 4A:

_'(4A)But that does not prevent the Secretary of State from making an order under subsection (2) to deprive a person of a citizenship status if—
(a)the citizenship status results from the person's naturalisation,
(b)the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom, any of the Islands, or any British overseas territory, and
(c)the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory.'
_
That doesn't apply in this case as her British citizenship wasn't gained by naturalisation - she was born here.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

What if he weren't satisfied?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

It will be interesting to know about the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship, how it's gained/transmitted, whether it's automatic or has to be applied for - it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.

The Dutch angle via her hubby - the legality of the marriage - will be another potential option that Javid will be looking at.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What if he weren't satisfied?



He'd have to show some reasonable basis for not being satisfied, or his decision would be sucesfully judicially reviewed; in practice, he'd need to be able show that she was a dual citizen.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> ... it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.


Withdrawing her British citizenship if she were entitled to (but didn't hold) another citizenship, would make her stateless, which he can't do.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It will be interesting to know about the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship, how it's gained/transmitted, whether it's automatic or has to be applied for - it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.
> 
> The Dutch angle via her hubby - the legality of the marriage - will be another potential option that Javid will be looking at.



If her British citizenship was the result of natralisation, an entitlement to Bangladeshi citizenship would be enough (assuming the other criteria are met), but, for a UK born British citizen, she'd have to actually be a (dual) Bangladeshi citizen (not merely entitled to become one) before she could be stripped of British citizenship.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

I started off on this thread by saying i don't care about the legality of any of this yet have ended up digging myself into an corner about the legality of it.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It will be interesting to know about the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship, how it's gained/transmitted, whether it's automatic or has to be applied for - it will also be interesting to know whether Javid can annul her UK citizenship if she actually has Bangladeshi citizenship, or if she's just entitled to it.
> 
> The Dutch angle via her hubby - the legality of the marriage - will be another potential option that Javid will be looking at.



Javid has admitted he can't make her stateless, so can't stop her returning.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I started off on this thread by saying i don't care about the legality of any of this yet have ended up digging myself into an corner about the legality of it.



Digging a hole or painting into a corner - come on, it's not rocket surgery.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 18, 2019)

Athos said:


> Digging a hole or painting into a corner - come on, it's not rocket surgery.


I think that sums up my last few posts nicely


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think that sums up my last few posts


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 18, 2019)

If Javid is expending any significant effort into finding a way to strip this girl of her citizenship so he can score points with the press then the man is even more of a twat than I thought. Accept that she is, bring home her and all the other UK born ne'er do wells that are still kicking and sort them out when they get here. Stick in her prison for a few years by all means but this sort of nitpickery is embarrassing for what is supposed to be a civilized country.


----------



## LDC (Feb 18, 2019)

Old, but relevant perhaps...

German 'Islamic State' wife charged with murder of 5-year-old slave | DW | 28.12.2018


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> If Javid is expending any significant effort into finding a way to strip this girl of her citizenship so he can score points with the press then the man is even more of a twat than I thought. Accept that she is, bring home her and all the other UK born ne'er do wells that are still kicking and sort them out when they get here. Stick in her prison for a few years by all means but this sort of nitpickery is embarrassing for what is supposed to be a civilized country.


I don't think Javid or anyone else has spent any significant effort on trying to take away her citizenship. Unless she has another nationality, he can't, and as Athos says that's not rocket science. Fuck bringing her back though. If she gets to a consulate then the government is obliged to deal with her but otherwise <shrug>. There are also a few dozen male fighters who've surrendered to the Kurds. The most expedient action would be to hand the fucking lot of them over to the Syrians.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think Javid or anyone else has spent any significant effort on trying to take away her citizenship. Unless she has another nationality, he can't, and as Athos says that's not rocket science. Fuck bringing her back though. If she gets to a consulate then the government is obliged to deal with her but otherwise <shrug>. There are also a few dozen male fighters who've surrendered to the Kurds. The most expedient action would be to hand the fucking lot of them over to the Syrians.



Some sense there, though the last sentence makes me shudder a little.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Javid has admitted he can't make her stateless, so can't stop her returning.



You are conflating different issues.

He _may _not be able to strip her of her UK citizenship, the answer to which is a technical, legal question that is dependent on the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship.

He may well be able to stop her traveling to the UK - she doesn't have any valid travel documents, and the UK seems in no hurry to provide her with one. 

Even if she manages to get to the UK embassy in Baghdad or Ankara, and Javid isiunable to strip her of her UK citizenship, does anyone know if they are legally required to provide her with a passport?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Even if she manages to get to the UK embassy in Baghdad or Ankara, and Javid isiunable to strip her of her UK citizenship, does anyone know if they are legally required to provide her with a passport?


haha! I've just been googling that.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 18, 2019)

kebabking said:


> You are conflating different issues.
> 
> He _may _not be able to strip her of her UK citizenship, the answer to which is a technical, legal question that is dependent on the technicalities of Bangladeshi citizenship.
> 
> ...



What spy posted above - If she gets to a consulate then the government is obliged to deal with her.

They can't legally refuse to issue papers to a UK citizen.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

Not sure, but it's not a definite entitlement.



> Having British nationality does not guarantee you a passport. For example, you may not get a new passport (or your existing passport may be taken from you) if:
> 
> 
> you’re suspected of a serious crime and an arrest warrant has been issued
> ...



The first comes close but it looks like that's to stop someone fleeing the UK rather than entering.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Not sure, but it's not a definite entitlement.



That's all about people in the UK, preventing them from leaving the country, not about people returning to the UK, where refusing a passport would make them stateless.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> That's all about people in the UK, preventing them from leaving the country, not about people returning to the UK, where refusing a passport would make them stateless.


Yeah, I reckon that's probably right.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

See here.

The issuing, withdrawal or refusal of passports


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

Athos said:


> See here.
> 
> The issuing, withdrawal or refusal of passports


Again though, most of that looks to prevent people travelling from the UK rather than to it. Withdrawing someone's passport (or refusing to issue one) when they're overseas, would seem to render them stateless.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Again though, most of that looks to prevent people travelling from the UK rather than to it. Withdrawing someone's passport (or refusing to issue one) when they're overseas, would seem to render them stateless.



Shouldn’t need a fucking passport to move from place to place anyway.  That’s not what they were meant for.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 18, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> ..They can't legally refuse to issue papers to a UK citizen.





cupid_stunt said:


> That's all about people in the UK, preventing them from leaving the country, not about people returning to the UK, where refusing a passport would make them stateless.



Refusing a passport does not make them stateless, a passport is not citizenship, it is a travel document - and I'm afraid that yes, the UK government can refuse to issue a passport if (either), a person is suspected of a serious crime and a warrant is issued, or if a court order is secured.

The statement however is primarily aimed at UK citizens in the UK being prevented from traveling abroad - what it's not is clear about refusing/cancelling the passport UK citizen who is abroad and wishes to return to the UK.

Worth noting is the part the Royal Perogotive plays in this.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Some sense there, though the last sentence makes me shudder a little.



Fuck 'em.

This makes me shudder:


----------



## Edie (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck 'em.
> 
> This makes me shudder:



That really is terrible. Very upsetting.


----------



## Athos (Feb 18, 2019)

This is interesting:

*'Passport entitlement*
_There is no statute law governing the grant, refusal of British passports, which are issued in the United Kingdom. However, certain principles apply which are as follows:-
United Kingdom passports are issued in the UK at the discretion of the Home Secretary and in overseas posts at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. They are issued in exercise of the Royal Prerogative, which is an executive power that doesn’t require legislation.
There is however, no entitlement to a passport and there are circumstances where passport facilities are refused: -
• Minors whose journey is known to be contrary to a Court Order, to the wishes of a parent or other person or authority awarded custody or care and control, under the provisions of the Children Act 1989, or the Children Act (Scotland) 1995, or the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995; 
• Where a person is to be arrested under a warrant issued in the United Kingdom or is wanted by the United Kingdom police in suspicion of a serious crime; 
• *Where a person’s past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest (these cases are very rare and decisions on this category are made personally by the Home Secretary); *
• In the case of UK nationals who have been repatriated from abroad at public expense, until they have repaid their debt.' _[My emphasis]

It comes from here:
Royal Prerogative

In reality, it's almost inconceivable that any use of his discretion to _de facto_ do something that parliament has _de jure _made unlawful e.g. in practice to make her stateless would withstand a claim for judicial review (notwithstanding the historical difficulties of JR for exercise of royal perogative in matters of national security).


----------



## 8ball (Feb 18, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Fuck 'em.
> 
> This makes me shudder:




Me too; what I’ve heard and read of the crimes of the Syrian regime is also pretty traumatic, and that’s just to read and hear about.

The “eye for an eye” has to end somewhere if there is ever going to be peace.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 18, 2019)

None of this is that weird. She is of Bangladeshi heritage, but was born in the UK, she is British. If she makes it to a British Consulate or Embassy they will be obliged to issue her with emergency travel documents, but not obliged to assist with her travel arrangements. The people running the camp she is in have said that she is not free to leave as she pleases as she has no documents, they want the UK to provide the paperwork (shouldn’t be too tricky), and then deal with her once she gets back here. Surely this is the UK’s obligation to her and to the other states of the world.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 18, 2019)

8ball said:


> Me too; what I’ve heard and read of the crimes of the Syrian regime is also pretty traumatic, and that’s just to read and hear about.
> 
> The “eye for an eye” has to end somewhere if there is ever going to be peace.


I don't care what the Syrian regime (or anyone else) does to people who've been responsible for what she describes. It neatly solves the problem of repatriating and prosecuting them here though.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 19, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Refusing a passport does not make them stateless, a passport is not citizenship, it is a travel document - and I'm afraid that yes, the UK government can refuse to issue a passport if (either), a person is suspected of a serious crime and a warrant is issued, or if a court order is secured.
> 
> The statement however is primarily aimed at UK citizens in the UK being prevented from traveling abroad - what it's not is clear about refusing/cancelling the passport UK citizen who is abroad and wishes to return to the UK.
> 
> Worth noting is the part the Royal Perogotive plays in this.


,
Well a passport is a bit more than just a travel document, as it certifies someone's citizenship, and without that it would basically appear to leave them stateless. And, as you say, that statement is primarily aimed at keeping people in the UK, not preventing their return.

I saw an interview with the Attorney General, or a former one, saying we can not make her stateless under both UK & international law, and we can't stop her returning. Meanwhile in Parliament yesterday, Javid finally admitted the same, saying - While the UK cannot leave people stateless, under international law, he said any such Britons would be "questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted".

That doesn't mean the UK has go out of it's way to provide help, and she would appear in limbo, being in Syria with no British Consulate or Embassy available, but if she manages to cross the border and get to one, they will have to issue a passport or some other legal travel documents.


----------



## LDC (Feb 19, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Well a passport is a bit more than just a travel document, as it certifies someone's citizenship, and without that it would basically appear to leave them stateless.



As has been said, that's just not true. Not having a passport and being stateless are _very_ different things.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> As has been said, that's just not true. Not having a passport and being stateless are _very_ different things.



I think refusing to let a citizen back into the only country of which they hold citizenship (by witholding a passport) is _de facto_ making them stateless.  It'd never fly.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 19, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> As has been said, that's just not true. Not having a passport and being stateless are _very_ different things.


That’d certainly be true if they were refused the passport whilst they were in the UK. Not issuing one to someone who is overseas and trying to return, I think it could be argued, has the same effect as making them stateless.


----------



## LDC (Feb 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> I think refusing to let a citizen back into the only country of which they hold citizenship (by witholding a passport) is _de facto_ making them stateless.  It'd never fly.



Maybe it's semantics in part we arguing about here, but no it doesn't. The only thing that makes them stateless is having their citizenship withdrawn. The British State isn't obliged to issue any passports to UK citizens abroad when they demand/want one.

She, for example, could be arrested and stuck in a prison somewhere. She'd not have a passport but would still be a UK citizen with all that goes with that. She could be handed over to UK authorities while abroad and brought back under detention, no passport but still a UK citizen.

I think it's an important distinction. She is not at all in the same position as people that have been made stateless.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Maybe it's semantics in part we arguing about here, but no it doesn't. The only thing that makes them stateless is having their citizenship withdrawn. The British State isn't obliged to issue any passports to UK citizens abroad when they demand/want one.
> 
> She, for example, could be arrested and stuck in a prison somewhere. She'd not have a passport but would still be a UK citizen with all that goes with that. She could be handed over to UK authorities while abroad and brought back under detention, no passport but still a UK citizen.
> 
> I think it's an important distinction. She is not at all in the same position as people that have been made stateless.



You may be right by the black letter of the law, but I'd be amazed if any court interpreted it that way.  Because it's effectively depriving her of being able to lawfully live anywhere, insofar as she couldn't lawfully enter the UK, and has no legal right to live anywhere else.  _De facto_, if not _de jure,_ statelessness.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 19, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> None of this is that weird. She is of Bangladeshi heritage, but was born in the UK, she is British. If she makes it to a British Consulate or Embassy they will be obliged to issue her with emergency travel documents, but not obliged to assist with her travel arrangements. The people running the camp she is in have said that she is not free to leave as she pleases as she has no documents, they want the UK to provide the paperwork (shouldn’t be too tricky), and then deal with her once she gets back here. Surely this is the UK’s obligation to her and to the other states of the world.



Yes, it shouldn't be that hard.  If the worlds press can get to the camp easily enough I'm sure the British government could work out a way of getting her out of there.  In general the government needs a strategy for dealing with the various British IS supporters who are now in various refugee / prisoner of war camps dotted around Iraq and Syria.  

But it sticks in the craw somewhat that should the UK government extricate her from her self made mess than she would be getting better and preferential treatment than some backpacker that had just run out of money in a country with no UK consular services.  Given everything she has done and enabled, not to mention her existing attitude, get better treatment than you or I would?


----------



## eoin_k (Feb 19, 2019)

They don't need to issue her with a passport to repatriate her. However she travels, they can issue a Temporary Travel Document valid only for that journey. The threat to strip her of her nationality was tough talk, playing to the gallery.


----------



## xenon (Feb 19, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> ,
> Well a passport is a bit more than just a travel document, as it certifies someone's citizenship, and without that it would basically appear to leave them stateless. And, as you say, that statement is primarily aimed at keeping people in the UK, not preventing their return.
> 
> I saw an interview with the Attorney General, or a former one, saying we can not make her stateless under both UK & international law, and we can't stop her returning. Meanwhile in Parliament yesterday, Javid finally admitted the same, saying - While the UK cannot leave people stateless, under international law, he said any such Britons would be "questioned, investigated and potentially prosecuted".
> ...



Not sure a passport certifies citizenship as such. It may be supporting evidence if someone's citizenship is being challenged but it doesn't confer it of itself. The owning of a passport or right to own one being denied doesn't mean the individual has had their citizenship revoked.

It's irrelevant anyway as Bahnohf outlines above. She'd travel back with emergency docs and having done so, may never be issued a passport in future. All the while remaining a British citizen.


----------



## xenon (Feb 19, 2019)

Ah  as everyone else has already said basically.

Let's stop talking about passports, it's fucking boring.


----------



## rekil (Feb 19, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The most expedient action would be to hand the fucking lot of them over to the Syrians.


This would probably be one of the least desirable outcomes given the regime's longstanding relationship with ISIS and record of facilitating jihadi carnage in 'Raq.  

http://time.com

Islamic State is collaborating with Assad, leaked documents reveal



Spoiler: Lister on Assad and AQ








This story requires deeper investigation.


----------



## Smangus (Feb 19, 2019)




----------



## Dandred (Feb 19, 2019)




----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 19, 2019)

ITV News just said her citizenship has been revoked


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 19, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> ITV News just said her citizenship has been revoked




Here's the Home Office letter to her parents


----------



## agricola (Feb 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Here's the Home Office letter to her parents




Not sure that they've ever done that for someone who has just given birth and who is in a refugee camp.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Here's the Home Office letter to her parents



That letter reads like it's been written in crayon.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

Dandred said:


> View attachment 162353


Do you not think that's a bit off? Not just you, there's loads of dodgy comments on this thread.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 19, 2019)

agricola said:


> Not sure that they've ever done that for someone who has just given birth and who is in a refugee camp.



Brutal, innit?


----------



## agricola (Feb 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Brutal, innit?



The legal case to overturn it certainly will, especially if they haven't revoked that of the other girls (or indeed anyone still over there).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 19, 2019)

So does she have dual nationality then?


----------



## dessiato (Feb 19, 2019)

Just been announced her British citizenship is to be revoked.

Isis Briton Shamima Begum to have UK citizenship revoked

Isis Briton Shamima Begum faces move to have citizenship revoked


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 19, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So does she have dual nationality then?



What nationality will the newborn have?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> What nationality will the newborn have?



Quite!


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So does she have dual nationality then?



Not any more...


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 19, 2019)

Revoking her citizenship smacks of pandering to or appeasing the far right and that's disquieting to say the least.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> Revoking her citizenship smacks of pandering to or appeasing the far right and that's disquieting to say the least.


Yeah. I am very surprised at this news.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> Revoking her citizenship smacks of pandering to or appeasing the far right and that's disquieting to say the least.


Yep. Regardless of what she's done, this is shitty behaviour from the Uk govt and an attempt to set a pretty dangerous precedent, imo.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 19, 2019)

dessiato said:


> Just been announced her British citizenship is to be revoked.
> 
> Isis Briton Shamima Begum to have UK citizenship revoked
> 
> Isis Briton Shamima Begum faces move to have citizenship revoked


Daft move, in my opinion. We going to do that to all criminals now?


----------



## nardy (Feb 19, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> We going to do that to all criminals now?


No such luck.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

So wtf do the Kurds do with her now? Where do they send her?

I hope this is simply playing to the crowd and is a decision that is reversed.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

That letter looks a bit sus.  From the layout, the language and the lack of detail.  I'd be surprised if she has been deprived of her citizenship, and, if she has, i'd be surprise if that withstands a legal challenge (unless she has a dual citizenship unknown to the public).  I suppose it could be an attempt by Javid to look tough, knowing full well it will be overturned by the courts.


----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 19, 2019)

It's a very dangerous precedent to set. Removing citizenship on the grounds of adhering to the wrong ideology.

She's not wanted for or accused of any crimes as such, is she?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 19, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> It's a very dangerous precedent to set. Removing citizenship on the grounds of adhering to the wrong ideology.
> 
> She's not wanted or accused of any crimes as such, is she?


I would be surprised if the govt get away with this


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> It's a very dangerous precedent to set. Removing citizenship on the grounds of adhering to the wrong ideology.
> 
> She's not wanted or accused of any crimes as such, is she?


Yes, she is. She is wanted here for the crime of joining IS, at a minimum. That's not really the point, imo. Bring her here and have her held to account for what she has done. A criminal British person is still a British person - 'our' responsibility, not the responsibility of whichever poor sods get stuck with her.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> It's a very dangerous precedent to set. Removing citizenship on the grounds of adhering to the wrong ideology.
> 
> She's not wanted or accused of any crimes as such, is she?


She is, someone highlighted them all earlier. Belonging to a proscribed organisation is one I can remember, there are loads of new laws relating to exactly this situation (travelling abroad to join IS). I am not sure when they were made law, quite recently.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> That letter looks a bit sus.  From the layout, the language and the lack of detail.  I'd be surprised if shehas been deprived of her citizenship, and, if she has, i'd be surprise if that withstands a legal challenge (unless she has a dual citizenship unknown to the public).  I suppose if could be an attempt by Javid to llok tough, knowing full well it will be overturned by the courts.



I don't get letters from the Home Office, but iI woul expect it to say that X decision has brbe taken in accordance with Y regulation in the Z Act and what the appeal process is.

Do we know it's real, and not some hoax?


----------



## gosub (Feb 19, 2019)

Step in the wrong direction.   Should have worked on getting a unit in the Hauge step up for processing and vetting.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

Iirc, when the laws were introduced, activist type people in the UK were quite unhappy about it, as they're quite open to interpretation and could pick up a lot of organisations and people in their remit if the government wanted.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

8115 said:


> Iirc, when the laws were introduced, activist type people in the UK were quite unhappy about it, as they're quite open to interpretation and could pick up a lot of organisations and people in their remit if the government wanted.


I share some of that unease, but joining IS in the way that she did - smuggling herself out of Britain and into Syria specifically to join up with their cause and to marry one of them for the furtherance of the new state - goes somewhat beyond mere passive 'membership' in any case.


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I share some of that unease, but joining IS in the way that she did - smuggling herself out of Britain and into Syria specifically to join up with their cause and to marry one of them for the furtherance of the new state - goes somewhat beyond mere passive 'membership' in any case.


Yeah, I wasn't highlighting it to state a position (other than kind of, oh that's interesting, I wonder if it has any implications here), just remembered.


----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, she is. She is wanted here for the crime of joining IS, at a minimum. That's not really the point, imo. Bring her here and have her held to account for what she has done. A criminal British person is still a British person - 'our' responsibility, not the responsibility of whichever poor sods get stuck with her.


Have charges been formally laid against her? (not that it makes much difference either way tbh)

Eta: I don't know the legal details - is 'being wanted' enough alone? Does a warrant need to be issued?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> Have charges been formally laid against her? (not that it makes much difference either way tbh)


No. They're currently busy trying to make her stateless so that she never returns. But others have been prosecuted for this upon their return. There is no doubt she would be arrested the second she stepped foot in the UK.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 19, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> Have charges been formally laid against her? (not that it makes much difference either way tbh)



They can’t realistically be until she returns to the UK.


----------



## LDC (Feb 19, 2019)

It's possible to feel uneasy about the decision (or it looks more like an attempt really) and where it _might_ lead, but also to have a feeling of pleasure and justice at her plight. My bet is it won't stand legally though.

People can be charged in the absence can't they though?


----------



## maomao (Feb 19, 2019)

Does anyone think this would be happening if she was white (and I don't know about ISIS wives but there are certainly white ISIS soldiers)? The only reason people have contemplated taking her citizenship away is because they don't think she's British in the first place. I'm all for locking her up but this is just stupid and probably illegal.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 19, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It's possible to feel uneasy about the decision (or it looks more like an attempt really) and where it _might_ lead, but also to have a feeling of pleasure and justice at her plight. My bet is it won't stand legally though.
> 
> People can be charged in the absence can't they though?



They can, but in theory the CPS should be in a position to prosecute when a charge is laid and in this case they can’t be cos she ain’t here, also it is better in most cases to have the accused interviewed before considering which charges, if any they should face.


----------



## LDC (Feb 19, 2019)

maomao said:


> Does anyone think this would be happening if she was white?



Yes, I think it would.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 19, 2019)

She had dual UK/Bangladeshi citizenship apparently


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 19, 2019)

maomao said:


> Does anyone think this would be happening if she was white (and I don't know about ISIS wives but there are certainly white ISIS soldiers)? The only reason people have contemplated taking her citizenship away is because they don't think she's British in the first place. I'm all for locking her up but this is just stupid and probably illegal.



Samantha Lewthwaite.


----------



## twentythreedom (Feb 19, 2019)

Sajid Javid is such a nasty piece of work. What a vile tory shitcunt.

I hope the baby retains full rights, given that he was born to a (then) British citizen.

Just when you think you couldn't hate the Tories more. Fucking depressing


----------



## LDC (Feb 19, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> Samantha Lewthwaite.



And Sally-Anne Jones - Wikipedia


----------



## maomao (Feb 19, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> Samantha Lewthwaite.


I'd forgotten her. Almost a perfect parallel. Any wide spread campaign to have her citizenship revoked?


----------



## LDC (Feb 19, 2019)

maomao said:


> I'd forgotten her. Almost a perfect parallel. Any wide spread campaign to have her citizenship revoked?



She wasn't asking to come back, it was a while ago, and she got killed first.

I do agree for some people there's a probably an element of 'was never British in the first place' but I've not heard or seen that expressed anywhere and I'm not going looking for it in the sewers of the internet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 162357 She had dual UK/Bangladeshi citizenship apparently


Very convenient for them if true. I wonder if she's even ever been to Bangladesh. She's far more British than Bangladeshi.

Either way, revocation of citizenship in this way is basically using a technicality. So what, she gets deported to Bangladesh now, or what?

ETA: Also, the fact that she was only 15 when she left becomes very significant now. Often kids are given dual nationality as a decision made by their parents, and then choose whether or not to keep it when they reach 18. So _even if _she has dual nationality, this stinks.


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 19, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> She wasn't asking to come back, it was a while ago, and she got killed first.



Wasn't that the other one, the woman from Chatham?


----------



## maomao (Feb 19, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> She wasn't asking to come back, it was a while ago, and she got killed first.
> 
> I do agree for some people there's a probably an element of 'was never British in the first place' but not heard or seen expressed anywhere.


I've been listening to it all fucking day.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Very convenient for them if true. I wonder if she's even ever been to Bangladesh. She's far more British than Bangladeshi.
> 
> Either way, revocation of citizenship in this way is basically using a technicality. So what, she gets deported to Bangladesh now, or what?



Her husband is Dutch, her kid can therefore be Dutch, in time it is possible she could get Dutch citizenship and move to the UK if some kind of free movement exists after Brexit. Which will garner some lols from me, at least.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

maomao said:


> I'd forgotten her. Almost a perfect parallel. Any wide spread campaign to have her citizenship revoked?



TBF she isn't all over the news asking to come back to Britain. FWIW I do though, think she'd get more 'consideration'.

Thinking about Shamina Begum though...her having dual citizenship has been a touch for the authorities I think. This decision would have been much harder to make if she was solely a Brit.

I'm glad it isn't me having to make these decisions tbh.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> That letter looks a bit sus.  From the layout, the language and the lack of detail.  I'd be surprised if she has been deprived of her citizenship, and, if she has, i'd be surprise if that withstands a legal challenge (*unless she has a dual citizenship unknown to the public*).  I suppose it could be an attempt by Javid to look tough, knowing full well it will be overturned by the courts.





MadeInBedlam said:


> View attachment 162357 She had dual UK/Bangladeshi citizenship apparently



That makes sense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

So is it too late for Bangladesh to revoke their citizenship, then? Britain got first dibs? If a person is living in the other country of their citizenship, I would understand the practice of revoking the British one, but not in these circumstances.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 19, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> I hope the baby retains full rights, given that he was born to a (then) British citizen.



You'd hope so. Bangladeshi citizenship is _jus sanguis, _so the baby hasn't been made stateless, no matter what happens in the UK courts. But this'll go all the way to the Supreme Court I suspect.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

If Britain can revoke why can't Bangladesh? She wasn't/isn't living there either.


----------



## xenon (Feb 19, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> Revoking her citizenship smacks of pandering to or appeasing the far right and that's disquieting to say the least.


Have to agree. Wouldn’t be surprised to see a legal challenge. Sagid powerstanse Javid  still gets to look hard.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> If Britain can revoke why can't Bangladesh? She wasn't/isn't living there either.



Quite possibly they could have done (though i suspect they couldn't, now - making her stateless would contravene international law).  I think as similar thing happened with Abu Hamza, when Egypt(?) revoked before the UK did.

ETA:  On closer examination, it looks like Bangladesh canonly revoke citizenship conferred by naturalisation, whereas her's would be by jus sanguinis i.e. her parents' blood.


----------



## planetgeli (Feb 19, 2019)

You can't move the goalposts because "LOL Bangladesh!". We manage to tolerate (ok, and imprison) plenty of odious people already. Accommodating one more is a sign of civilisation isn't it? Let her back, put her on trial.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> Quite possibly they could have done.  I think as similar thing happened with Abu Hamza, when Egypt(?) revoked before the UK did.


So it's first dibs. Whoever gets in there first is the one that can revoke. Tough shit on the other one? How marvellous international law is.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So it's first dibs. Whoever gets in there first is the one that can revoke. Tough shit on the other one? How marvellous international law is.


Effectively, yes.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2019)

xenon said:


> Have to agree. Wouldn’t be surprised to see a legal challenge. Sagid powerstanse Javid  still gets to look hard.


On what grounds though? If she genuinely is dual then the thing is surely watertight. The home sec simply has these powers if this is the case. If they _should _have them is a diff question.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> On what grounds though? If she genuinely is dual then the thing is surely watertight. The home sec simply has these powers if this is the case. If they _should _have them is a diff question.


The grounds that she was 15 when she left, perhaps. From what I know about dual nationality, it's something kids normally decide for themselves on at 18.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

I despise Javid, but I don't get a lot this outrage; she's not being made stateless, and so has a legal right to go to live in a safe country of which she is a citizen.  An immeasurably better fate than that which her brutal group imposed on many far more innocent than her.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The grounds that she was 15 when she left, perhaps. From what I know about dual nationality, it's something kids normally decide for themselves on at 18.



I think this line is a non-starter, not least cos it’s blates that she would have chosen to keep the nationality of an Islamic country, were she given the choice.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> On what grounds though? If she genuinely is dual then the thing is surely watertight. The home sec simply has these powers if this is the case. If they _should _have them is a diff question.



Possibly on the grounds of Article 8 of the ECHR - the right to family life.  Though I'm doubtful she'd succeed.



littlebabyjesus said:


> The grounds that she was 15 when she left, perhaps. From what I know about dual nationality, it's something kids normally decide for themselves on at 18.



I doubt that'd make much difference.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The grounds that she was 15 when she left, perhaps. From what I know about dual nationality, it's something kids normally decide for themselves on at 18.


I think it depends. Some states don't allow dual nationality, others make you choose at 18, others are happy to allow you to keep dual nationality for life.


----------



## xenon (Feb 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> On what grounds though? If she genuinely is dual then the thing is surely watertight. The home sec simply has these powers if this is the case. If they _should _have them is a diff question.



Didn’t know she had dual til about 2 mins ago.  


Wonderr what if anything happens now.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2019)

None of the other 100 or so cases have managed to get one overturned.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> None of the other 100 or so cases have managed to get one overturned.



The link you posted yesterday included two* who have: Altin Arusha and Abu Hamza.

* ETA: At the time of the article, they may have been the only two, though thay may have been more since.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> The link you posted yesterday included (the only) two who have: Altin Arusha and Abu Hamza.


Can you remember on what grounds?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 19, 2019)

Will be interesting to see what the Bangladesh Government has to say...


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Can you remember on what grounds?



Arusha because the Home Sec couldn't prove citizenship was obtained fraudulently (which was the grounds for depriving him of it), and Hamza because Egypt best the UK to the punch.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 19, 2019)

8ball said:


> Will be interesting to see what the Bangladesh Government has to say...



"Aye, fucking cheers for that pal" in diplo-speak.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

eatmorecheese said:


> I think it depends. Some states don't allow dual nationality, others make you choose at 18, others are happy to allow you to keep dual nationality for life.


Yeah I know. My mate's kid will have to decide at 18 whether or not to be Japanese - till then she can be both. But even if you don't have to revoke, my understanding is that 18 is generally the age at which you make the decision yourself. Certainly not 15. 

Unluckily for her, Bangladesh does appear to allow dual citizenship 'by blood' throughout life.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 19, 2019)

(((((Bangladesh)))))


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yeah I know. My mate's kid will have to decide at 18 whether or not to be Japanese - till then she can be both. But even if you don't have to revoke, my understanding is that 18 is generally the age at which you make the decision yourself. Certainly not 15.
> 
> Unluckily for her, Bangladesh does appear to allow dual citizenship 'by blood' throughout life.



She could have revoked it before now.  She's an adult with dual citizenship (well, until earlier today).


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 19, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Her husband is Dutch, her kid can therefore be Dutch, in time it is possible she could get Dutch citizenship and move to the UK if some kind of free movement exists after Brexit. Which will garner some lols from me, at least.


She's most unlkely to get Dutch citizenship, her husband would have to return home and apply for permission to bring her there as his spouse, The Dutch authorities then consider her application, much the same as it would be bringing a foreign spouse into this country, is she of good character? is it a genuine marriage and so forth. If so she can come and then they would then have to live as husband and wife and good upstanding citizens for 5 years. Fine if he was some guy who went to work abroad, met the love of his life and wants to bring her home with him.
He went out there to fight for ISIS and unlike her will have actual blood on his hands. The instance he's back in the Netherlands he presumably gets arrested, tried and banged up for a long time.
Not a good start to convincing a tribunal to let his wife into the country, she probably won't make a great impression on them either. 
It's probable that one of the two things would apply re the kid, her parents lawyer up and arrange for their grandchild to come here as a British citizen sans his mother. Or the Dad's parents can get him into
the Netherlands, Dutch immigration law says the kid is automatically Dutch if the parents are married and the father can register the child up to 7 years after birth if not married.
No idea if the Dutch authorities view ISIS arranged marriages as legal or not (not would be my guess but don't know), I would imagine that him registering the birth would involve the Dutch authorities getting their hands on him.
I know naff all about about Bangladeshi citizenship (neither I suspect does Javid) but since she apparently has never been there and doesn't have a passport then I suspect she has it via grandfathered rights and may not have even known she had it. (if Bangladesh operates the same rules as the UK then the baby will not be a Bangladeshi citizen) Not great odds that Bangladesh would be willing to let her in either.
Unless her parents can win an appeal then she will probably die in the refugee camp.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

Athos said:


> She could have revoked it before now.  She's an adult with dual citizenship (well, until earlier today).


Yes, that is true. I was banking on her leaving age rather than current age. On the face of it, it doesn't look good. Sure there will be Bangladeshi lawyers poring over their legislation looking for a loophole, though.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... it doesn't look good.



She can go to a safe country, and the UK doesn't have to have her.  I don't think that's too bad, actually.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> "Aye, fucking cheers for that pal" in diplo-speak.



I think what’s most likely, given Javid and the muppets behind this, is that he gets slapped down in a most
embarrassing fashion.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 19, 2019)

8ball said:


> Will be interesting to see what the Bangladesh Government has to say...


Probably something along the lines of "You Bastard we were going to do that first"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Probably something along the lines of "You Bastard we were going to do that first"


Is it possible they hadn't even realised before today? I would think so. She'll be on record somewhere, but if nobody looks...


----------



## 8ball (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is it possible they hadn't even realised before today? I would think so. She'll be on record somewhere, but if nobody looks...



You reckon this is kosher, or Javid is just taking a punt?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

8ball said:


> You reckon this is kosher, or Javid is just taking a punt?


Dunno. My gut says the latter, but who knows. Such a move isn't going to do wonders for UK–Bangladesh relations given that she is so obviously British. I guess he doesn't care about that. Not my department... Just remembered who is Foreign Secretary. Fuck me what a shower.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 19, 2019)

If this guy is correct, her Bangladeshi connection is likely more complex than it at first sight appears:


----------



## Don Troooomp (Feb 19, 2019)

If she has citizenship of another country, looks like Bangladesh in this case, the law says she can be stripped of British citizenship. 
Looking at her comments about the Manchester murders, I'm finding it hard to argue against this ruling.
I'm into giving people a chance, but it's looking a lot like she's had one and blown it.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 19, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> If Britain can revoke why can't Bangladesh? She wasn't/isn't living there either.


The UK beat Bangladesh to it by the looks of it.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 19, 2019)

If she has it via grandfathered rights then one (or both) of her parents came from Bangladesh and settled in this country and she inherited it from them, They may very well have not even registered her 
birth with the Bangaldeshi Embassy. Just because she wasn't registered doesn't prevent her from being a citizen.
Javid is definitely playing to the crowd here, underserving of sympathy though this girl may be, Javid is being a gold medal standard twat.


----------



## Dandred (Feb 19, 2019)

Just as an aside, I couldn't bring my Korean wife back to the Uk unless I could show I had a job making 60,000 squid a year. I do more than that in Korea but not in the UK. No chance.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 19, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> If she has citizenship of another country, looks like Bangladesh in this case, the law says she can be stripped of British citizenship.
> Looking at her comments about the Manchester murders, I'm finding it hard to argue against this ruling.
> I'm into giving people a chance, but it's looking a lot like she's had one and blown it.


Click on the tweet I posted. It basically says that the Bangladeshi diaspora have a "right of return", and that this not the same thing as citizenship.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

> Javid said on Friday that Begum would be investigated and prosecuted if she returned to the UK, and highlighted a new “designated areas” law approved by parliament last week which in the future will give the government powers to make it an offence to travel to regions deemed to pose a security threat to the UK.



This is very concerning. Aping the US. Very very bad law, slipped through last week.


----------



## Edie (Feb 19, 2019)

Why the fucks this Bangladesh’s problem, she was raised in East London.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 19, 2019)

Edie said:


> Why the fucks this Bangladesh’s problem, she was raised in East London.


She has dual citizenship and the UK managed to dump her UK one first but mostly the problem is that Javid is a twat.


----------



## Theisticle (Feb 19, 2019)

One of the most vulgar and nakedly racist leadership pitches from a Home Secretary since...well, Theresa May.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

Edie said:


> Why the fucks this Bangladesh’s problem, she was raised in East London.


Yep. Like it or not, she's our problem. She's never even been there. And if Idris is right that neither she nor her parents even actively sought Bangladeshi citizenship for her, then this is really just plain racism. I know it's a  person of Pakistani origin doing it, but Javid hides behind his ethnicity to do horrible racist things.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is very concerning. Aping the US. Very very bad law, slipped through last week.



Any idea what instrument introduced the law? Everything is so Brexit-fixated there's danger of other stuff not being picked up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Any idea what instrument introduced the law? Everything is so Brexit-fixated there's danger of stuff not being picked up.


No. It's the first I've heard of it. Slipped the fucking thing through, no doubt with a minimum of scrutiny.


----------



## Edie (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Like it or not, she's our problem. She's never even been there. And if Idris is right that neither she nor her parents even actively sought Bangladeshi citizenship for her, then this is really just plain racism. I know it's a  person of Pakistani origin doing it, but Javid hides behind his ethnicity to do horrible racist things.


You think Javid is racist? He’s just a careerist surely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

Edie said:


> You think Javid is racist? He’s just a careerist surely.


His actions are racist. His policies are racist. That's what matters. And yes, he's blatantly angling to be the next PM. And is very willing to do racist things to get there.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ....but Javid hides behind his ethnicity to do horrible Tory/classist/racist things.



FIFU...he's another cunt that thinks he has arrived.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

Edie said:


> You think Javid is racist? He’s just a careerist surely.



What does he do to further his career? What are his aspirations? Who's interests do his actions and values serve?


----------



## 8ball (Feb 19, 2019)

Sajid Javid, to his credit, has done more than any possible logical argument on Urban could to change my mind about the best possible outcome of this.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

He's not racist he's being loyal to Britain his adopted country. British citizenship is a strong identity for those that didn't get it by birthright.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> He's not racist he's being loyal to Britain his adopted country. British citizenship is a strong identity for those that didn't get it by birthright.


He was born in Rochdale. That's total bollocks anyway, but total bollocks that is totally irrelevant here.


----------



## maomao (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> He's not racist he's being loyal to Britain his adopted country. British citizenship is a strong identity for those that didn't get it by birthright.



What's his adopted country?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> He's not racist he's being loyal to Britain his adopted country. British citizenship is a strong identity for those that didn't get it by birthright.



Adopted? He was born here. What makes you say he 'adopted' it?

Oh yeah...his 'tinged skin' at it again...trumps all.


----------



## xenon (Feb 19, 2019)

I wouldnt say its racist either. Raciists will love it though. And the Home sec / Torys count that as a win.


----------



## zahir (Feb 19, 2019)

Not a dual citizen according to this report.

Shamima Begum: Isis Briton faces move to revoke citizenship


> Javid told the Commons on Monday: “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.”
> 
> Although Begum is not a dual citizen, the home secretary has been advised that, because her mother holds a Bangladeshi passport, he may be able to deprive her of her British citizenship. The Home Office has not commented.


----------



## UrbaneFox (Feb 19, 2019)

Banned


----------



## hash tag (Feb 19, 2019)

Just saw that, she has dual citizenship with Bangladesh! 
BBC News - Shamima Begum: IS teenager to lose UK citizenship
IS teenager to lose UK citizenship


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

zahir said:


> Shamima Begum: Isis Briton faces move to revoke citizenship


Fucking hell. That is an utterly fucking despicable thing to try to do.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

Whether he's first or second generation I standby what I said that being British often means a lot more to people who get it or recently acquired it through parental immigration.


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 19, 2019)

I wanna compare the Shamima Begum case to that of Jaggi Singh Johal but that means implying that the UK government treats minority ethnic people with contempt.... 

Nah, revoking Begums citizenship will have empowered the far right even more then the already were. If I wasn't in Facebooks naughty corner, I bet I could go see the Tommy Robinson fanboys tossing one off in a triumphant fizzpop of gammony triumph. 


(sorry for the slightly incoherent rant there. I'm somewhat wired from energy drinks and stress. )


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Whether he's first or second generation I standby what I said that being British often means a lot more to people who get it or recently acquired it through parental immigration.





It's not about being British, it's about his conservatism/classism and yes, unfortunately the racism which is inherent in those values, aspiration and pursuit of them.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

He's not being racist, I don't think racism is inherent in conservative values either. Aspiration is a universal quality and one all immigrants to Great Britain have.


----------



## Athos (Feb 19, 2019)

He serves the interests of capital, which perpetuates racism.


----------



## Theisticle (Feb 19, 2019)

The Home Office deported some of the Windrush generation on the false pretence that they were criminals. The weaponisation of their powers is a creeping concern.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> He's not being racist, I don't think racism is inherent in conservative values either. Aspiration is a universal quality and one all immigrants to Great Britain have.



I disagree.  I think you need to make up your mind. I  find it strange that you insist that 'aspiration' is something that all immigrants to Britain have as if it's their own making/undoing but isn't linked to classism and the racism that history has proved to be inherent in those values. You also insist he is simply being a loyal Brit. Perhaps you could expand on why you think that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Whether he's first or second generation I standby what I said that being British often means a lot more to people who get it or recently acquired it through parental immigration.


Backpedal!!!

All this post tells me really is that you see his skin colour and name first.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 19, 2019)

Much as I couldn't give a fuck about this individual, this move by the government sets a very bad precedent.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Backpedal!!!
> 
> All this post tells me really is that you see his skin colour and name first.



His funny tinge.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

Are you saying immigrants are victims of racism and classism? Does racism and classism not exist in places immigrants come from.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 19, 2019)

Javid isn't being racist, classist (?) or serving the interest of capital, he is just being a good old fashioned honest to goodness twat, he has ambitions and appearing tough on terrorism appeals to the sort of
people who can help him achieve those ambitions. Don't assign him any motives other than self-interest.
I have no sympathy for this girl who is in this mess entirely of her own making but come on "She's a Threat To National Safety?" What is she an ISIS bride or one of the X-Men?  Do you get superpowers along with your ISIS membership card?
Bring her (and the other wasters with her) back here,  big (but fair) show trials all round as a warning to others, good long stretch of bird sewing mailbags and on the cops radar till she's an old woman.
But Javid is being stupid, the full might of the UK against a scared and stupid teenage girl and her baby (especially since a lot of the more dangerous ones will come back here cos he can't palm them off on someone else) Does he not think this is likely to make people sorry for her (and she doesn't deserve people being sorry for her)  Lock her up here and a year from now no-one will remember her name, the self-serving idiot is going to make her a martyr at this rate.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Backpedal!!!
> 
> All this post tells me really is that you see his skin colour and name first.


You tell me that you can't challenge the point that many immigrants are more loyal to a country they struggled to adopt than a privileged person that has always taken it for granted


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Are you saying immigrants are victims of racism and classism? Does racism and classism not exist in places immigrants come from.




No I am saying that being an immigrant doesn't stop someone holding the kinds of conservative and classist values/ideals that replicate racism.

Being an immigrant isn't the point you see. Nor is being the child of an immigrant.

Now, can you say what being loyal to Britain means and why you think SJ is merely being a loyal 2nd generation immigrant? As opposed to simply just being a loyal Brit.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

Because I'm responding to the ludicrous point of him being racist so therefore I raised his background unless you want to expand on why he's being racist I think there's not much more to add.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 19, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Because I'm responding to the ludicrous point of him being racist so therefore I raised his background unless you want to expand on why he's being racist I think there's not much more to add.




I don't need to expand on where that came from...if you'd read the conversation you'd know.

Now instead of back pedaling and avoiding, can you say what being loyal to Britain means and why you think SJ is merely being a loyal 2nd generation immigrant? As opposed to simply just being a loyal Brit.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

Sounds like you except my reason then


----------



## Raheem (Feb 19, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> On what grounds though? If she genuinely is dual then the thing is surely watertight. The home sec simply has these powers if this is the case.


It's never that simple. The decision still has to be justified under the legislation and generally compatible with the law (e.g. HRA, Children Act).


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 19, 2019)

Edie said:


> Why the fucks this Bangladesh’s problem, she was raised in East London.





MickiQ said:


> Javid isn't being racist, classist (?) or serving the interest of capital, he is just being a good old fashioned honest to goodness twat, he has ambitions and appearing tough on terrorism appeals to the sort of
> people who can help him achieve those ambitions. Don't assign him any motives other than self-interest.
> I have no sympathy for this girl who is in this mess entirely of her own making but come on "She's a Threat To National Safety?" What is she an ISIS bride or one of the X-Men?  Do you get superpowers along with your ISIS membership card?
> Bring her (and the other wasters with her) back here,  big (but fair) show trials all round as a warning to others, good long stretch of bird sewing mailbags and on the cops radar till she's an old woman.
> But Javid is being stupid, the full might of the UK against a scared and stupid teenage girl and her baby (especially since a lot of the more dangerous ones will come back here cos he can't palm them off on someone else) Does he not think this is likely to make people sorry for her (and she doesn't deserve people being sorry for her)  Lock her up here and a year from now no-one will remember her name, the self-serving idiot is going to make her a martyr at this rate.



 I think I'm coming around to this position. Originally I was more for some sort of response similar to the Allied prosecutions of fascists after WW2  or at least the UK providing financial and legal support for those countries who have ended up with these fascists. However I really do think the UK should take responsibility for criminal investigation and any prosecution of UK ISIS  members. Not just returning fighters but also in  in gathering evidence about the role of UK ISIS women members and bringing those who were involved in the enslavement of Yazidi women to justice .


----------



## 8115 (Feb 19, 2019)

Found this earlier, thought it was interesting.

Sajid Javid 'taking UK down dangerous road' by expanding citizenship stripping


----------



## IC3D (Feb 19, 2019)

I think she's done fuck all wrong bar being an incompetent parent. She must of spent the whole time pregnant while somehow letting two of her kids die, if anyone should come down on her it should be social services.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 19, 2019)

And she's a bit of a religious fash.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 19, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> I think I'm coming around to this position. Originally I was more for some sort of response similar to the Allied prosecutions of fascists after WW2  or at least the UK providing financial and legal support for those countries who have ended up with these fascists. However I really do think the UK should take responsibility for criminal investigation and any prosecution of UK ISIS  members. Not just returning fighters but also in  in gathering evidence about the role of UK ISIS women members and bringing those who were involved in the enslavement of Yazidi women to justice .




Wouldn’t hold your breath on that steps. 

I’d add to your list an end to the prosecution of socialists and trade unionist anti fascist YPK fighters. I won’t be holding my breath either.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 19, 2019)

No sympathy from me for this Begum character. I'd have been happy with her either being left to rot in that camp, or facing trial should she have somehow made it back here. But this decision to strip her of British citizenship strikes me as a particularly slimy bit of dangerous opportunism by that greasy pole-climbing Javid cunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 19, 2019)

Edie said:


> Why the fucks this Bangladesh’s problem, she was raised in East London.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 19, 2019)

It's all down to misogyny and racism. 








Nothing else going on here. Oh no!


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> Even she was bored by you - sorry.


By the way, Abs; Kris says that she doesn't know you and has never heard of you; but from your posts to me here, she thinks you're a "fucking twat" (her words, not mine)


----------



## A380 (Feb 20, 2019)

I think the most important question is this: If Ms Begum gets out of the refugee camp then to the UK, Holland or Bangladesh and then decided she wants to visit the USA, would she start a new thread on Urban asking if anyone could advise on getting an American visa?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's all down to misogyny and racism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not you too now? This thread has had enough simplistic misrepresentation of other people's views, don't you think? 

If it is correct that the govt is trying to deny her citizenship on the basis that her mother is Bangladeshi and Bangladesh has a system in place that defaults citizenship rights to her from that without her or her parents having done anything active to get her Bangladeshi citizenship, then that's a fucking disgrace. It's a disgraceful thing to even think of doing on all kinds of levels.


----------



## zahir (Feb 20, 2019)

This thread suggests that she does have automatic Bangladeshi citizenship but wouldn’t have had it if she was over 21.


----------



## Celyn (Feb 20, 2019)

Point 1.1 above seems to suggest that it matters whether her citizenship was acquired by naturalisation. What a mess.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 20, 2019)

Celyn said:


> Point 1.1 above seems to suggest that it matters whether her citizenship was acquired by naturalisation. What a mess.


I think it is just a photo of the wrong provision. There's also a law allowing removal of citizenship for born citizens.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This thread has had enough simplistic misrepresentation of other people's views, don't you think?


Possibly, but that was started by weepiper, ably supported by abstract1 with a side-dish of insightful analysis (since debunked) of my marriage/wife!



> If it is correct that the govt is trying to deny her citizenship on the basis that her mother is Bangladeshi and Bangladesh has a system in place that defaults citizenship rights to her from that without her or her parents having done anything active to get her Bangladeshi citizenship, then that's a fucking disgrace. It's a disgraceful thing to even think of doing on all kinds of levels.


Given your position throughout the debate, I understand why you think this. I disagree. She's not being made stateless by the letter of the law (I've only read this thread and some Twitter stuff tonight, so reserve the right to revise my opinion).

She's keen for her kid to grow up in the UK. A country she quite clearly still reviles. Let's go get the baby (send in the Marines!!!) and let our social services decide what is in his best interest.

Leave her there.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Leave her there.



She's not being _left_ anywhere. Refugee camps aren't permanent settlements. She will be repatriated somewhere and we've said fuck off you're not our problem because you're brown. Racism doesn't suddenly become okay because you're doing it to a shitty person. It also sends a message to an entire generation of British Asians that we don't really believe they're British. 

Stuck her in fucking Bellmarsh if you want. Bring back hanging just for her if that gets you off, I don't particularly give a fuck (though tbh I find it all makes me more depressed than angry). But the focus on one teenage girl out of dozens of British ISIS combatants reeks of sexism and the decision to say she's not British anymore because she's from an immigrant family is straight up racist. 


As an aside I was trying to think of violent criminals who have been repatriated to the UK but Google struggles with prepositions and all I get is extradition cases. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Leslie Grantham who a) is a bit of a crap example and b) was subject to laws regarding British soldiers. Anyone got a better example?


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> As an aside I was trying to think of violent criminals who have been repatriated to the UK but Google struggles with prepositions and all I get is extradition cases. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Leslie Grantham who a) is a bit of a crap example and b) was subject to laws regarding British soldiers. Anyone got a better example?



Does Gary Glitter count?


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> Does Gary Glitter count?


Bit better than my dirty Den example but there must be a naughtier one.


----------



## abstract1 (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> By the way, Abs; Kris says that she doesn't know you and has never heard of you; but from your posts to me here, she thinks you're a "fucking twat" (her words, not mine)



Good work!


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> She's not being _left_ anywhere. Refugee camps aren't permanent settlements. She will be repatriated somewhere and we've said fuck off you're not our problem because you're brown. Racism doesn't suddenly become okay because you're doing it to a shitty person. It also sends a message to an entire generation of British Asians that we don't really believe they're British.
> 
> Stuck her in fucking Bellmarsh if you want. Bring back hanging just for her if that gets you off, I don't particularly give a fuck (though tbh I find it all makes me more depressed than angry). But the focus on one teenage girl out of dozens of British ISIS combatants reeks of sexism and the decision to say she's not British anymore because she's from an immigrant family is straight up racist.
> 
> ...



Whilst I have very limited sympathy for Begum, the suspicion that the Home Secretary is misusing such powers is a concern, partly because of the dangers to all of us of a 'contractualist' or 'privilege' conception of citizenship and the practical challenges to anyone affected achieving an effective remedy, but particularly if he's doing so on racist or sexist grounds.

And, whilst I wouldn't rush to rule out that possibility (knowing how UK society works, and knowing Javid is an unprincipled political opportunist) I think - in light of the facts that: there's hundreds of thousands of "brown" women who haven't been stripped of their UK citizenship; the power had been used overwhelmingly against men; and, it has been used against at least one white person (Anna Chapman) - it'd be hard to make such a charge stick without some examples of the Home Secretary deciding not to do so in comparable cases involving white men.

I'm not aware of any, but would be very interested to hear them.   (The Grantham case being a very poor example, since he's not a dual citizen.)


----------



## Edie (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


>


What


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2019)

IC3D said:


> Whether he's first or second generation I standby what I said that being British often means a lot more to people who get it or recently acquired it through parental immigration.


That's not what you previously said though


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's all down to misogyny and racism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why not think of these things as complex and multifactorial? Move the lens about a bit, it doesn't have to get stuck. I work with very troubled and sometimes very disturbed young people, I have an interest in that, it doesn't make my views unpolitical or invalid in a politics thread, even if there are posters like butchersapron who are exceptionally aware of the politics of Syria who are able to bring a much deeper and wider political perspective to it. You can narrow the lens, and widen it again. I don't get this either or way or thinking.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> Whilst I have very limited sympathy for Begum, the suspicion that the Home Secretary is misusing such powers is a concern, partly because of the dangers to all of us of a 'contractualist' or 'privilege' conception of citizenship and the practical challenges to anyone affected achieving an effective remedy, but particularly if he's doing so on racist or sexist grounds.
> 
> And, whilst I wouldn't rush to rule out that possibility (knowing how UK society works, and knowing Javid is an unprincipled political opportunist) I think - in light of the facts that: there's hundreds of thousands of "brown" women who haven't been stripped of their UK citizenship; the power had been used overwhelmingly against men; and, it has been used against at least one white person (Anna Chapman) - it'd be hard to make such a charge stick without some examples of the Home Secretary deciding not to do so in comparable cases involving white men.
> 
> I'm not aware of any, but would be very interested to hear them.   (The Grantham case being a very poor example, since he's not a dual citizen.)


Neither's Begum. 

And Chapman was only a British citizen by marriage.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> She's not being _left_ anywhere. Refugee camps aren't permanent settlements. She will be repatriated somewhere and we've said fuck off you're not our problem because you're brown. Racism doesn't suddenly become okay because you're doing it to a shitty person. It also sends a message to an entire generation of British Asians that we don't really believe they're British.
> 
> Stuck her in fucking Bellmarsh if you want. Bring back hanging just for her if that gets you off, I don't particularly give a fuck (though tbh I find it all makes me more depressed than angry). But the focus on one teenage girl out of dozens of British ISIS combatants reeks of sexism and the decision to say she's not British anymore because she's from an immigrant family is straight up racist.
> 
> ...


Search for repatriated to the UK as a phrase

Oh, and refugee camps aren't intended as permanent settlements. But many of them have become permanent. Like in Pakistan. Like in countries around the zionist entity.

E2A your point about the message it sends to British Asians, I saw someone say the other day going down this path would radicalise more people. People who've gone to join daesh will see this and be riled. People who weren't pissed off will be riled. It's the stupidest thing that could be done so it's no surprise they've done it


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Neither's Begum.
> 
> And Chapman was only a British citizen by marriage.



How do you know Begum's not a dual citizen?  (I genuinely don't know, but, presumably the Home Secretary thinks there's an arguable case she is.)


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> How do you know Begum's not a dual citizen?  (I genuinely don't know, but, presumably the Home Secretary thinks there's an arguable case she is.)


From the papers. We'll see.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 20, 2019)

Whilst I couldn’t really care if the Kurds shoot her or the Yazidis tear her limb from limb, this does sound rather dodge if she was born in the UK. Not least that her baby was born to a British citizen, (and if she was born in the UK it would seem that the baby has no right to Bangladeshi citizenship), so would be ripe for a challenge under the right to family life.

On a plus side, it seems the Home Sec now has the power to remove Spymaster to India or Ireland for starting that thread with his skidmarked skuds in it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> From the papers. We'll see.



Which papers? How do they know?


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> E2A your point about the message it sends to British Asians, I saw someone say the other day going down this path would radicalise more people. People who've gone to join daesh will see this and be riled. People who weren't pissed off will be riled. It's the stupidest thing that could be done so it's no surprise they've done it


My concern is more that it (along with many other factors) increases segregation and apeeration between communities that should have shared than it directly encourages people to become active terrorists. Though a bit of that too. She didn't join Daeah in a vacuum. Doesn't make her innocent but British society isn't innocent either.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> Which papers? How do they know?


See my second sentence.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Whilst I couldn’t really care if the Kurds shoot her or the Yazidis tear her limb from limb, this does sound rather dodge if she was born in the UK. Not least that her baby was born to a British citizen, (and if she was born in the UK it would seem that the baby has no right to Bangladeshi citizenship), so would be ripe for a challenge under the right to family life.
> 
> On a plus side, it seems the Home Sec now has the power to remove Spymaster to India or Ireland for starting that thread with his skidmarked skuds in it.



We don't know when her citizenship was revoked; if it happened before birth, then, quite possibly her kid isn't a British citizen!


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Search for repatriated to the UK as a phrase


First few pages are all medical and post mortem repatriation. Maybe you can do better.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Feb 20, 2019)

Theresa May arms Islamic extremists who massacre 10,000s in Yemen.

Isn’t it time to strip her of British citizenship?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> My concern is more that it (along with many other factors) increases segregation and apeeration between communities that should have shared than it directly encourages people to become active terrorists. Though a bit of that too. She didn't join Daeah in a vacuum. Doesn't make her innocent but British society isn't innocent either.


Being as all British Asians have just been told effectively you're here at the government's whim I think it will be used as an argument in radicalising people. It will make the far right really happy and lead to calls for lots of other people to lose uk citizenship, some of whom are repugnant, perhaps members of rape gangs, others of whom will be much less egregious sinners.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> See my second sentence.



"We'll see" doesn't answer the questions about which papers say she's not a dual citizen and how they'd know. But I get that you're not interested in discussing it, which is fine.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Being as all British Asians have just been told effectively you're here at the government's whim I think it will be used as an argument in radicalising people. It will make the far right really happy and lead to calls for lots of other people to lose uk citizenship, some of whom are repugnant, perhaps members of rape gangs, others of whom will be much less egregious sinners.



The power has already been used in respect of a paedophile.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Why not think of these things as complex and multifactorial? Move the lens about a bit, it doesn't have to get stuck. I work with very troubled and sometimes very disturbed young people, I have an interest in that, it doesn't make my views unpolitical or invalid in a politics thread, even if there are posters like butchersapron who are exceptionally aware of the politics of Syria who are able to bring a much deeper and wider political perspective to it. You can narrow the lens, and widen it again. I don't get this either or way or thinking.



You are talking to someone who got very animated about bigoted White middle class men being called _gammon_ but not so much when his own mates here on Urban were joking and referring to him _nignog_ and as a _paki_. He was more angry about others being upset about that and supported his mates right to throw such terms about. His judgement is valueless imo.

This move to revoke her citizenship can't be used on a person who has both parents born in this country. That's a two tier system right there and effectively racist  because it creates two classes of people and different treatment for those who's parents were born elsewhere.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> This move to revoke her citizenship can't be used on a person who has both parents born in this  country.



Yes it can.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> We don't know when her citizenship was revoked; if it happened before birth, then, quite possibly her kid isn't a British citizen!



The letter was dated yesterday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The letter was dated yesterday.


royal mail have done something wonderful to their service


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The letter was dated yesterday.


The important date is when the decision was made, rather than when she was told of it; the letter doesn't confirm when the decision was made.  Though the letter does say that the order was post the service of the decision on the file, which it says took place on 19 February, so it's unclear.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> The important date is when the decision was made, rather than when she was told of it; the letter doesn't confirm when the decision was made.



Really? Javid can claim to have made the decision at a certain time/date and that's that? Doesn't need to be witnesses or owt? Doesn't sound how the law normally works...


----------



## kebabking (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The letter was dated yesterday.



That's only when the letter was written up, which was a Monday. It's quite probable - likely even - that the HoSec completed the paperwork some time before that. The act of stripping her of UK citizenship almost occured at the point where SJ signed the order, or possibly at the time that the order was committed to her file in the central registry.

The letter came from Liverpool, but the order was almost certainly signed in the HO in London or in SJ's constituancy in Worcestershire.

Had the letter come from the HO in Whitehall then it's very likely that the letter would have been written and couriered the same day, but the fact that it was from Liverpool instead suggests a decent possibility that it wasn't.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Really? Javid can claim to have made the decision at a certain time/date and that's that? Doesn't need to be witnesses or owt? Doesn't sound how the law normally works...



I suppose technically, it's the date of the order. But it's a bit unclear. Wouldn't rule out the possibility.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 20, 2019)

kebabking said:


> That's only when the letter was written up, which was a Monday. It's quite probable - likely even - that the HoSec completed the paperwork some time before that. The act of stripping her of UK citizenship almost occured at the point where SJ signed the order, or possibly at the time that the order was committed to her file in the central registry.
> 
> The letter came from Liverpool, but the order was almost certainly signed in the HO in London or in SJ's constituancy in Worcestershire.
> 
> Had the letter come from the HO in Whitehall then it's very likely that the letter would have been written and couriered the same day, but the fact that it was from Liverpool instead suggests a decent possibility that it wasn't.



All possible, but the greater possibility is that since this is clearly an act by Javid to garner political capital he'd have ensured the announcement was made as soon as the ink was dry.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 20, 2019)

The letter says notice was served Feb. 19 and the order removing her British citizenship "has subsequently been made," I don't think they're going to be able to backdate it - though they probably would if they thought they could get away with it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> "We'll see" doesn't answer the questions about which papers say she's not a dual citizen and how they'd know. But I get that you're not interested in discussing it, which is fine.


The reports I’ve seen (BBC, Guardian, Independent, so on) all seem to suggest that it is a creative use of the notion of dual citizenship. That they can make this move because she is _eligible_ for citizenship of another country. The suggestion (and it is no more than an inference that I’m drawing) would seem to be that this is not something she has already taken up. The Indy reports that the Bangladeshi authorities say she does not yet hold citizenship there.

I think we can take this matter out wider than Begum herself (as Red Cat correctly advises Spymaster). She herself bears responsibility for joining a movement responsible for atrocities, oppression, and all the rest of it, and for the effect the “Caliphate” had on the revolution against Assad. She undermined prerequisite solidarity in a grievous way.  So, if she were to make to back to the UK, I’d say prosecute her. And I wouldn’t advocate helping her get back.

That said, this move would seem to be saying that because of a clever clerical trick we can make her Bangladesh’s responsibility. I’m not OK with that. 

Nor am I OK with the precedent this sets. Revoking the citizenship of people the state has decided to disapprove of (including people who have not yet been convicted of anything) is not a healthy step. This is not about Begum. Frankly, to hell with her. This is about how far down the road this takes us to a point where this might in the future mean I can be stripped of citizenship if I go abroad on holiday, and while away, the state decides it doesn’t like the content of my bookshelves, as an example.

If Begum has broken UK laws, then try her in a UK court, should she manage to return. Don’t play to the gallery by trying to palm her off on a country that she *could* qualify for citizenship of. That opens all sorts of unpleasant consequences.


----------



## Poi E (Feb 20, 2019)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Theresa May arms Islamic extremists who massacre 10,000s in Yemen.
> 
> Isn’t it time to strip her of British citizenship?



She's doing her best at removing the British bit.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The reports I’ve seen (BBC, Guardian, Independent, so on) all seem to suggest that it is a creative use of the notion of dual citizenship. That they can make this move because she is _eligible_ for citizenship of another country. The suggestion (and it is no more than an inference that I’m drawing) would seem to be that this is not something she has already taken up. The Indy reports that the Bangladeshi authorities say she does not yet hold citizenship there.
> 
> I think we can take this matter out wider than Begum herself (as Red Cat correctly advises Spymaster). She herself bears responsibility for joining a movement responsible for atrocities, oppression, and all the rest of it, and for the effect the “Caliphate” had on the revolution against Assad. She undermined prerequisite solidarity in a grievous way.  So, if she were to make to back to the UK, I’d say prosecute her. And I wouldn’t advocate helping her get back.
> 
> ...



Yes spot on, all it.

It all just strikes me as a power hungry home secretary trying to play the tough man, playing to the crowd.  Did he cancel his holiday to come back and make this decision?


----------



## newbie (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> All possible, but the greater possibility is that since this is clearly an act by Javid to garner political capital he'd have ensured the announcement was made as soon as the ink was dry.



a move championed by his boss



			
				2011 said:
			
		

> The measure was included in the 2006 Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act as a direct result of the July 2005 bombings in which 52 people died and more than 700 were injured. It was used only four times in the following four years, but has been used nine times since last year's general election.
> 
> "British nationality is a privilege and the home secretary has the ability to remove it from dual nationals when *she* believes it to be in the public good."



Home Office stripping more dual-nationality Britons of citizenship


----------



## Poi E (Feb 20, 2019)

I'd better start behaving again.


----------



## OzT (Feb 20, 2019)

You have books and bookshelves, and go abroad on holidays???? How vey bourgeois of ye danny la rouge . . . .


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> The reports I’ve seen (BBC, Guardian, Independent, so on) all seem to suggest that it is a creative use of the notion of dual citizenship. That they can make this move because she is _eligible_ for citizenship of another country. The suggestion (and it is no more than an inference that I’m drawing) would seem to be that this is not something she has already taken up. The Indy reports that the Bangladeshi authorities say she does not yet hold citizenship there.
> 
> I think we can take this matter out wider than Begum herself (as Red Cat correctly advises Spymaster). She herself bears responsibility for joining a movement responsible for atrocities, oppression, and all the rest of it, and for the effect the “Caliphate” had on the revolution against Assad. She undermined prerequisite solidarity in a grievous way.  So, if she were to make to back to the UK, I’d say prosecute her. And I wouldn’t advocate helping her get back.
> 
> ...



I broadly agree with most of that.  I'm just not convinced that the press would know one way or another whether or not she's a dual national.  If she's not, but is merely entitled to become one, then the law seems pretty clear that citizenship can only be stripped from those who've acquired it by naturalisation.  Of course, I'd be very concerned about the Home Secretary acting unlawfully because its politically expedient.


----------



## Poi E (Feb 20, 2019)

OzT said:


> You have books and bookshelves, and go abroad on holidays???? How vey bourgeois of ye danny la rouge . . . .



danny reads for _pleasure_


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 20, 2019)




----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2019)

OzT said:


> You have books and bookshelves, and go abroad on holidays???? How vey bourgeois of ye danny la rouge . . . .


I’m petite bourgeois precariat, technically. And my holidays abroad are hypothetical at the moment. But the books and bookshelves are real.


----------



## danny la rouge (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'm just not convinced that the press would know one way or another whether or not she's a dual national


No, and I concede that I was proceeding on the basis of an inference. But the points stand.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

danny la rouge said:


> No, and I concede that I was proceeding on the basis of an inference. But the points stand.



If the inference is true, I can't see how the Home Secretary could seriously think he'd defeat any legal challenge. Though, of course, he might not be acting in good faith - her may have knowingly acted unlawfully to look tough, and in the knowledge that there are significant practical bars to her being able to effectively seek any remedy.  Concerning for all of us, albeit I couldn't care less what happens to her for her own sake.


----------



## zahir (Feb 20, 2019)

An earlier proposal for how to deal with this kind of case...


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 20, 2019)

I haven't had time to read the whole thread so apologies for wasting time if this has already been covered.

Here is what May and Javid signed of on last summer:



> https://assets.publishing.service.g...18_CCS207_CCS0218929798-1_CONTEST_3.0_WEB.pdf
> 
> Part 2 Page 50 para 171
> 
> ...



So what's the problem?


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

So I'm interested, if in the future we find this current cabinet collectively responsible for, say, crimes against humanity for selling arms to Saudi Arabia - a move that I would consider reasonable and just but feel free to imagine other crimes if you think that unreasonable - is it okay if we just imprison the others for a few years, but revoke Sajid Javid's citizenship while he's out the country on the grounds that really he's Pakistani? Just trying to get this straight.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> So I'm interested, if in the future we find this current cabinet collectively responsible for, say, crimes against humanity for selling arms to Saudi Arabia - a move that I would consider reasonable and just but feel free to imagine other crimes if you think that unreasonable - is it okay if we just imprison the others for a few years, but revoke Sajid Javid's citizenship while he's out the country on the grounds that really he's Pakistani? Just trying to get this straight.


no. they'll all be bound for the grytviken - buenos aires friendship bridge dual nationality or not


----------



## newbie (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> So I'm interested, if in the future we find this current cabinet collectively responsible for, say, crimes against humanity for selling arms to Saudi Arabia - a move that I would consider reasonable and just but feel free to imagine other crimes if you think that unreasonable - is it okay if we just imprison the others for a few years, but revoke Sajid Javid's citizenship while he's out the country on the grounds that really he's Pakistani? Just trying to get this straight.


ooh... does it have to be just the current cabinet?  Johnson's fingerprints are all over the Yemen crimes. He was born in the USA, after he's released from Belmarsh revoking his citizenship would be very satisfactory.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

newbie said:


> ooh... does it have to be just the current cabinet?  Johnson's fingerprints are all over the Yemen crimes. He was born in the USA, after he's released from Belmarsh revoking his citizenship would be very satisfactory.


his name's been down for grytviken for some years now


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

newbie said:


> ooh... does it have to be just the current cabinet?  Johnson's fingerprints are all over the Yemen crimes. He was born in the USA, after he's released from Belmarsh revoking his citizenship would be very satisfactory.


Now you're just being silly. Johnson is white. No-one would ever dream of doing it to him. I'm just trying to pursue consistency here.


----------



## Poi E (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> Johnson is white



Frostbite will clear that up.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 20, 2019)

newbie said:


> ooh... does it have to be just the current cabinet?  Johnson's fingerprints are all over the Yemen crimes. He was born in the USA, after he's released from Belmarsh revoking his citizenship would be very satisfactory.



Johnson gave up his US nationality a few years ago so not much chance of getting him sent to SuperMax, unfortunately.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> She's not being _left_ anywhere. Refugee camps aren't permanent settlements. She will be repatriated somewhere and we've said fuck off you're not our problem because you're brown. Racism doesn't suddenly become okay because you're doing it to a shitty person.


Here we go again. Over 100 other dual nationals have had their UK citizenship revoked for going to join ISIS.

Fwiw, I'm don't necessarily agree with stripping her citizenship, especially if it makes her stateless, which is illegal, or if it amounts to an abuse of power by Javid. From what I can gather though she is a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladeshi law. They seem to say that if either of someone's parents is born in Bangladesh that person is automitically a Bangladeshi citizen. Ireland is the same. If either of one's parent were born on the island of Ireland (including NI), the Republic of Ireland government aoutomatically considers that person to be an Irish citizen regardless of whether they've ever set foot in the country or hold an Irish passport.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> On a plus side, it seems the Home Sec now has the power to remove Spymaster to India or Ireland ...


If I'd fucked off to join IS to help out with a spot of genocide, rape, and murder, I'd fully expect it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Here we go again. Over 100 other dual nationals have had their UK citizenship revoked for going to join ISIS.
> 
> Fwiw, I'm don't necessarily agree with stripping her citizenship, especially if it makes her stateless, which is illegal, or if it amounts to an abuse of power by Javid. From what I can gather though she is a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladeshi law. They seem to say that if either of someone's parents is born in Bangladesh that person is automitically a Bangladeshi citizen. Ireland is the same. If either of one's parent were born on the island of Ireland (including NI), the Republic of Ireland government aoutomatically considers that person to be an Irish citizen regardless of whether they've ever set foot in the country or hold an Irish passport.


Setting aside the racism angle, you can see how totally out of order this approach is, no? And also how potentially damaging and counterproductive it is. At a stroke, the home secretary labels thousands and thousands of British people who have never taken any action to obtain a second nationality as second-class citizens.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Here we go again. Over 100 other dual nationals have had their UK citizenship revoked for going to join ISIS.
> 
> Fwiw, I'm don't necessarily agree with stripping her citizenship, especially if it makes her stateless, which is illegal, or if it amounts to an abuse of power by Javid. From what I can gather though she is a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladeshi law. They seem to say that if either of someone's parents is born in Bangladesh that person is automitically a Bangladeshi citizen. Ireland is the same. If either of one's parent were born on the island of Ireland (including NI), the Republic of Ireland government aoutomatically considers that person to be an Irish citizen regardless of whether they've ever set foot in the country or hold an Irish passport.




hate to correct you, mccunty


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You are talking to someone who got very animated about bigoted White middle class men being called _gammon_ but not so much when his own mates here on Urban were joking and referring to him _nignog_ and as a _paki_.


Wow! Well this thread really has brought out the personal stuff hasn't it?

Sorry I'm not always as blisteringly keen as you are to play the race card at the drop of a hat.




			
				Rutita1 said:
			
		

> This move to revoke her citizenship can't be used on a person who has both parents born in this country.



It can be _used on_ anyone who legally holds dual nationality.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 162410
> 
> hate to correct you, mccunty



Sorry, but:



> *Irish citizen parents born in Ireland*
> If either of your parents was an Irish citizen who was born in Ireland, then you are automatically an Irish citizen, irrespective of your place of birth. If you are an Irish citizen, you can apply for an Irish passport. You do not need an Irish passport in order to be an Irish citizen but having an Irish passport is evidence that you are an Irish citizen.


Irish citizenship through birth or descent


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> If I'd fucked off to join IS to help out with a spot of genocide, rape, and murder, I'd fully expect it.


So why do you want her to get away with it? Or have the Bangladeshi authorities assured us they'll be locking her up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry, but:
> 
> 
> Irish citizenship through birth or descent


people who are born now in ireland will no longer be able to rely on it when their progeny seek irish nationality


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 20, 2019)

I wonder how creative the government is going to get if this precedent stands - seems like the next step would be paying impoverished or corrupt countries to issue passports to people the government doesn't want returning.

"Oh, you want to come back to Britain? Tough shit, you're a citizen of South Sudan now..."


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> So I'm interested, if in the future we find this current cabinet collectively responsible for, say, crimes against humanity for selling arms to Saudi Arabia - a move that I would consider reasonable and just but feel free to imagine other crimes if you think that unreasonable - is it okay if we just imprison the others for a few years, but revoke Sajid Javid's citizenship while he's out the country on the grounds that really he's Pakistani? Just trying to get this straight.


Skimming through Javid's wiki bio and the Pakistan Immigration webpage (which is disturbingly sexist) then unless Javid's father (mother doesn't matter) has renounced his own Pakistani citizenship which would automatically strip all his children (inc Javid) of theirs then Javid is indeed entitled to Pakistani citizenship and could be stripped of his British one by a future Home Secretary.
The idea of dual citizenship is really meant to cover people that were born in one country and move to another one to live, work, marry, have kids etc. Most countries allow citizenship by descent to survive 2 generations. (The immigrants kids and grand kids have it, great-grandkids don't). If you accept that someone can be stripped of their British citizenship because they technically have citizenship in the country their parents or grandparents came from but they may have never been then at this point in time pretty much everyone descended from a post-WW2 immigrant could be affected.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Both my kids are entitled to Chinese nationality but would have to give up British citizenship to get it (China doesn't allow dual nationality which is why my wife is not a UK citizen). I hope this doesn't set any precedents for how they'll be treated in thirty years time if we're at war with China.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> So why do you want her to get away with it? Or have the Bangladeshi authorities assured us they'll be locking her up?


I don't care what happens to her. As I've repeatedly said, if she makes her way to UK consular services then she should be brought here and tried.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Both my kids are entitled to Chinese nationality but would have to give up British citizenship to get it (China doesn't allow dual nationality which is why my wife is not a UK citizen). I hope this doesn't set any precedents for how they'll be treated in thirty years time if we're at war with China.


i'd be very surprised if you have to wait thirty years


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Both my kids are entitled to Chinese nationality but would have to give up British citizenship to get it (China doesn't allow dual nationality which is why my wife is not a UK citizen). I hope this doesn't set any precedents for how they'll be treated in thirty years time if we're at war with China.



As the law stands, they'd be fine. There solely British citizens.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Skimming through Javid's wiki bio and the Pakistan Immigration webpage (which is disturbingly sexist) then unless Javid's father (mother doesn't matter) has renounced his own Pakistani citizenship which would automatically strip all his children (inc Javid) of theirs then Javid is indeed entitled to Pakistani citizenship and could be stripped of his British one by a future Home Secretary.
> The idea of dual citizenship is really meant to cover people that were born in one country and move to another one to live, work, marry, have kids etc. Most countries allow citizenship by descent to survive 2 generations. (The immigrants kids and grand kids have it, great-grandkids don't). If you accept that someone can be stripped of their British citizenship because they technically have citizenship in the country their parents or grandparents came from but they may have never been then at this point in time pretty much everyone descended from a post-WW2 immigrant could be affected.



As the law stands, he'd need to be a dual national, rather than simply be entitled to become one.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Skimming through Javid's wiki bio and the Pakistan Immigration webpage (which is disturbingly sexist) then unless Javid's father (mother doesn't matter) has renounced his own Pakistani citizenship which would automatically strip all his children (inc Javid) of theirs then Javid is indeed entitled to Pakistani citizenship and could be stripped of his British one by a future Home Secretary.
> The idea of dual citizenship is really meant to cover people that were born in one country and move to another one to live, work, marry, have kids etc. Most countries allow citizenship by descent to survive 2 generations. (The immigrants kids and grand kids have it, great-grandkids don't). If you accept that someone can be stripped of their British citizenship because they technically have citizenship in the country their parents or grandparents came from but they may have never been then at this point in time pretty much everyone descended from a post-WW2 immigrant could be affected.


They're not really British you know. Not the ones who commit crimes. They others, we'll allow them to stay British because they've been good.

Still, it will be a relief to be rid of Javid, so swings and roundabouts, eh?

(Good research btw).


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> So why do you want her to get away with it? Or have the Bangladeshi authorities assured us they'll be locking her up?



If she comes to the UK and is convicted she'd probably get around six years, meaning she'd serve three.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> As the law stands, he'd need to be a dual national, rather than simply be entitled to become one.


Er. Isn't this discussion happening because the home secretary just removed citizenship because of an entitlement to citizenship elsewhere? Sorry if I'm missing something.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> Er. Isn't this discussion happening because the home secretary just removed citizenship because of an entitlement to citizenship elsewhere?


No. Under Bangladeshi law _she is already a Bangladeshi citizen_, not just entitled to become one.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> Er. Isn't this discussion happening because the home secretary just removed citizenship because of an entitlement to citizenship elsewhere? Sorry if I'm missing something.



Err... no. Because we don't know that's what's happened.  And the law is pretty clear that it can only be removed on the basis of an entitlement to citizenship of another country (as opposed to dual actual citizenship) where the UK citizenship was obtained by naturalization (or fraud).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. Under Bangladeshi law _she is already a Bangladeshi citizen_, not just entitled to become one.


But presumably until yesterday the authorities in Bangladesh had no idea she even existed. I'm sure they don't keep track of every birth registered around the world to the Bangladeshi diaspora. This is a purely notional citizenship until she actually applies for something with them and provides evidence of her right to it. The only country with her on record as a citizen will be the UK.

Compare and contrast with, say, my friend's daughter, who is registered as both British and Japanese. The Japanese authorities know of her existence and are fine with her being a dual national until she reaches 18, at which point she will have to choose. Now she's only a kid, but someone - in this case her parents - has made a decision to make her a dual national. Here, the home secretary is trying to exploit idea that you can be a dual national by accident, potentially without even realising it, without ever having taken any steps to obtain it.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. Under Bangladeshi law _she is already a Bangladeshi citizen_, not just entitled to become one.


This is semantic bullshit, and you should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> This is semantic bullshit, and you should be ashamed of yourself.


Lol


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But presumably until yesterday the authorities in Bangladesh had no idea she even existed. I'm sure they don't keep track of every birth registered around the world to the Bangladeshi diaspora. This is a purely notional citizenship until she actually applies for something with them and provides evidence of her right to it.



I'm no expert on Bangladeshi law, but I'm not sure you're right.   See s.5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended).  It does not include and requirement of application or registration that you seem to be claiming: 

5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 4[ father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:



Provided that if the 5[ father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-



(a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country; or



(b) that person's 6[ father or mother] is, at the time of the birth, in the service of any Government in Bangladesh.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But presumably until yesterday the authorities in Bangladesh had no idea she even existed. I'm sure they don't keep track of every birth registered around the world to the Bangladeshi diaspora. This is a purely notional citizenship until she actually applies for something with them and provides evidence of her right to it. The only country with her on record as a citizen will be the UK.


Looks like she's going to give the Dutch a whirl.

Let's see how that goes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'm no expert on Bangladeshi law, but I'm not sure you're right.   See s.5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended).  It does not include and requirement of application or registration that you seem to be claiming:
> 
> 5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 4[ father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
> 
> ...


To be clear, though, even if her parents registered her birth with the Bangladesh consulate, this still absolutely, totally stinks. She's never even been there. She quite probably wasn't even aware she'd been registered, if she was.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To be clear, though, even if her parents registered her birth with the Bangladesh consulate, this still absolutely, totally stinks. She's never even been there. She quite probably wasn't even aware she'd been registered, if she was.



It seems that she'd be a Bangladeshi citizen regardless of any registration or even Abby knowledge on her part!  I'm not necessarily endorsing the legal position; I'm explaining what it appears to be.

By s.14 she'd have lost it when she turned 21; them she'd have had to take some active steps to remain a dual citizen.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> It seems that she'd be a Bangladeshi citizen regardless of any registration or even Abby knowledge on her part!  I'm not necessarily endorsing the legal position; I'm explaining what it appears to be.
> 
> By s.14 she'd have lost it when she turned 21; them she'd have had to take some active steps to remain a dual citizen.


Well that strikes me as a legal case for challenging this. In effect, they have at a stroke declared that all British citizens with Bangladeshi parents are second-class citizens until they reach the age of 21.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To be clear, though, even if her parents registered her birth with the Bangladesh consulate, this still absolutely, totally stinks. She's never even been there. She quite probably wasn't even aware she'd been registered, if she was.



I don't think the fact that she's never been there is a big thing, considering where she has been in the last few years.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I don't think the fact that she's never been there is a big thing, considering where she has been in the last few years.


This isn't about what she's done. It's about what the UK govt is now trying to do to her, and the basis they are using to do it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well that strikes me as a legal case for challenging this. In effect, they have at a stroke declared that all British citizens with Bangladeshi parents are second-class citizens until they reach the age of 21.



The idea that dual nationals are second-class citizens has been extensively litigated already.  I doubt she'd get much joy out of that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> The idea that dual nationals are second-class citizens had been extensively litigated already.  I doubt she'd get much joy at of that.


The idea that you can be a dual national without even knowing it is one that I would suggest can and should be challenged. Does the UK government really want to go down that route?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well that strikes me as a legal case for challenging this. In effect, they have at a stroke declared that all British citizens with Bangladeshi parents are second-class citizens until they reach the age of 21.


You mean anyone with dual nationality (not just Bangladeshi), is a second class citizen insofar as they may have their British citizenship revoked if they join a genocidal foreign rape cult?


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The idea that you can be a dual national without even knowing it is one that I would suggest can and should be challenged. Does the UK government really want to go down that route?



You're speculating that she didn't know.

Plus it's a matter of foreign law not UK law. 

But, either way, it seems the government is willing to give it a shot. Possibly because they think they're on solid ground, possibly because they want to look tough notwithstanding they know they'll lose, and possibly because, even if they're wrong about the law, the difficulties she faces in challenging it might keep her out for a long time (during which the legal position could be overtaken by events e.g. her death).


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 20, 2019)

Doesn’t seem to be the brightest, if she’d kept her gob shut and not spoken to the idiot press then she’d have probably been quietly readmitted and subject to a bit of questioning, could have played the grooming victim angle and expressed remorse, got let off lightly. Instead every word she says, spun through a sensationalist media, digs a deeper hole. Surely someone in her family must have told her to shut up, unless they don’t actually want her back either.

Shows how fucked up her world view must be to think it was a good idea to say what she has, but I guess being where she has, the society she’s part of bombed out of existence, losing a couple of kids etc. probably skews your perspective.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> You're speculating that she didn't know.
> 
> Plus it's a matter of foreign law not UK law.
> 
> But, either way, it seems the government is willing to give it a shot. Possibly because they think they're on solid ground, possibly because they want to look tough notwithstanding they know they'll lose, and possibly because, even if they're wrong about the law, the difficulties she faces in challenging it might keep her out for a long time (during which the legal position could be overtaken by events e.g. her death).



Might also give Javid and opportunity to grandstand against Human Rights law/organisation, plays well to the gallery.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Might also give Javid and opportunity to grandstand against Human Rights law/organisation, plays well to the gallery.


 Win back a bit of UKIP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> You're speculating that she didn't know.
> 
> Plus it's a matter of foreign law not UK law.


Yes I'm speculating that she didn't know. But even if she did, she was only 15 and so had no reason to do anything about it. I would wager that, if you were to go to Bethnal Green and ask a random set of 15-year-olds of Bangladeshi descent if they know that they are Bangladeshi citizens by default and that they can be stripped of UK citizenship on that basis right up to the age of 21, a large majority of them will not know that.

As for your second bit, this is simply nonsense. It makes British citizenship contingent on the laws of other countries. This is very much a matter of UK law, and if UK law allows this stripping as it stands, then it's high time that was challenged and changed.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Doesn’t seem to be the brightest, if she’d kept her gob shut and not spoken to the idiot press then she’d have probably been quietly readmitted and subject to a bit of questioning, could have played the grooming victim angle and expressed remorse, got let off lightly.


Instead, she said that she was ok with Islamist beheadings and equated the bombing of an Ariana Grande concert full of kids, with the bombing of ISIS.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

If she's never been to Bangladesh and has no passport and never applied for one, then she's no more a Bangladeshi citizen than I am.

As for the laws of Bangladesh - if China passed a law making all British citizens also citizens of China, would you go righty-ho, I accept I have dual citizenship now?


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is very much a matter of UK law, and if UK law allows this stripping as it stands, then it's high time that was challenged and changed.



It's been tested many, many times.  Whether or not you or I like it,  it's settled law that dual nationals can, in some circumstances, be treated less favourably than sole nationals.  I can't see that principle being successfully challenged in court.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Instead, she said that she was ok with Islamist beheadings and equated the bombing of an Ariana Grande concert full of kids, with the bombing of ISIS.


She's a rotter all right.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> If she's never been to Bangladesh and has no passport and never applied for one, then she's no more a Bangladeshi citizen than I am.


Except by law.


> ... if China passed a law making all British citizens also citizens of China, would you go righty-ho, I accept I have dual citizenship now?


Well I would probably seek to revoke it myself; but yes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> If she's never been to Bangladesh and has no passport and never applied for one, then she's no more a Bangladeshi citizen than I am.
> 
> As for the laws of Bangladesh - if China passed a law making all British citizens also citizens of China, would you go righty-ho, I accept I have dual citizenship now?


auld spy does have dual citizenship, he wouldn't have to wait for the chinese to weigh in


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> If she's never been to Bangladesh and has no passport and never applied for one, then she's no more a Bangladeshi citizen than I am.



Morally, maybe.  But, legally,  she appears to be.


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well I would probably seek to revoke it myself; but yes.


That's hilarious. I might write a letter to Kim Jong Un suggesting he do this and make you a north Korean citizen, with no right to revoke, because he can. But just with you. Not the rest of us.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> That's hilarious. I might write a letter to Kim Jong Un suggesting he do this and make you a north Korean citizen, with no right to revoke, because he can. But just with you. Not the rest of us.


Umm, ok. 

(He can't, btw)


----------



## Brainaddict (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Umm, ok.
> 
> (He can't, btw)


It will be the law of another country. You can't argue with that.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Brainaddict said:


> It will be the law of another country. You can't argue with that.


Well there are such things as international law and precedents. Given that neither of my parents were born in North Korea and I have zero ties to the nation, I reckon he'd struggle a bit.

But feel free to drop him a line.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Umm, ok.
> 
> (He can't, btw)


the letter in full


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 162432



Dear Brainaddict,

Have you been smoking the whacky baccy?

Regards,
Kim Jong Un


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Dear Brainaddict,
> 
> Have you been smoking the whacky baccy?
> 
> ...


someone's been peddling you false info


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I don't think the fact that she's never been there is a big thing, considering where she has been in the last few years.



I've tried very hard but I can't read this post in a way that isn't suggesting that the nation of Bangladesh is somehow associated with ISIS. So what the fuck are you trying to say and what does her having lived in ISIS territory have to do with the good people of Bangladesh?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Wow! Well this thread really has brought out the personal stuff hasn't it?
> 
> Sorry I'm not always as blisteringly keen as you are to play the race card at the drop of a hat.



Yeah right, except when it's in defence of bigoted White men, then you wax lyrical about the evil racism of calling them 'gammon' but other people throwing terms like paki and nignog around is okay cos they are your friends.

I'm not surprised at your reactions to this btw, you have a lot in common with Javid, these things don't bother you, you feel 'safe' being middle class and sheltered by your resources, you think you've arrived.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> I've tried very hard but I can't read this post in a way that isn't suggesting that the nation of Bangladesh is somehow associated with ISIS. So what the fuck are you trying to say and what does her having lived in ISIS territory have to do with the good people of Bangladesh?



The suggestion was that it was unfair as she had never been to Bangladesh, the point being she had never been to the IS hell-hole before she settled there.

There's plenty of reasons to object to her UK citizenship being revoked, not least that it's unfair on Bangladesh, but I don't see the fact that she's never been there is one, as it would be fair better place than where she has been.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ... you think you've arrived.


LOL! It was quite a journey


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ... but other people throwing terms like paki and nignog around is okay cos they are your friends.


Bit of an out-of-context stretch there as well.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...you have a lot in common with Javid, these things don't bother you, you feel 'safe' being middle class and sheltered by your resources, you think you've arrived.



On a "making friends" mission today?


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> The suggestion was that it was unfair as she had never been to Bangladesh, the point being she had never been to the IS hell-hole before she settled there.
> 
> There's plenty of reasons to object to her UK citizenship being revoked, not least that it's unfair on Bangladesh, but I don't see the fact that she's never been there is one, as it would be fair better place than where she has been.



Hmmm

Blown up by Syrian jets or pushed into the city when your village drowns then  burnt to death in a factory. Not much of a choice.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

Article on American women wanting to return now the game is up
2 American Wives of ISIS Militants Want to Return Home


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes I'm speculating that she didn't know. But even if she did, she was only 15 and so had no reason to do anything about it. I would wager that, if you were to go to Bethnal Green and ask a random set of 15-year-olds of Bangladeshi descent if they know that they are Bangladeshi citizens by default and that they can be stripped of UK citizenship on that basis right up to the age of 21, a large majority of them will not know that.



The vast majority of them haven't made the choice to join a murderous religious nutter sect, so they'll never need to know it.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

Obviously redundant in Begums case but a view on child safeguarding and returning ISIS supporters who have children 
What could happen to Shamima Begum’s Child? A Family law perspective


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The vast majority of them haven't made the choice to join a murderous religious nutter sect, so they'll never need to know it.


So what? That's not really the point. The UK government is not justified by anything Begum has done in acting in this disgusting way, declaring certain British citizens to be less British than others as a result of their ancestry.


----------



## xenon (Feb 20, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The vast majority of them haven't made the choice to join a murderous religious nutter sect, so they'll never need to know it.



The objection LBJ is making and one I agree with, isn't anything to do with what an individual has or hasn't done. The point is the state being able to remove British citizenship from people who were born here somewhat stinks.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

xenon said:


> The objection LBJ is making and one I agree with, isn't anything to do with what an individual has or hasn't done. The point is the state being able to remove British citizenship from people who were born here somewhat stinks.



And in particular remove it from them because the state considers them foreign. It's a racist law.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 20, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Article on American women wanting to return now the game is up
> 2 American Wives of ISIS Militants Want to Return Home



Interesting and disturbing.  One of those women was actively encouraging acts of terrorism.  What will America do with her?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Bit of an out-of-context stretch there as well.


Not at all, highlights your hypocrisy perfectly.


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2019)

xenon said:


> The objection LBJ is making and one I agree with, isn't anything to do with what an individual has or hasn't done. The point is the state being able to remove British citizenship from people who were born here somewhat stinks.


Exactly, and while many here may think that it doesn't matter too much in the case of this young woman, there is every possibility that the next time it will be someone we might be less happy about it happening to.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

xenon said:


> The objection LBJ is making and one I agree with, isn't anything to do with what an individual has or hasn't done. The point is the state being able to remove British citizenship from people who were born here somewhat stinks.


It's everything to do with what they've done. Don't get involved with beheadings and rape in the name of some pseudo-religious, bullshit cause overseas and you won't get your citizenship pulled.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Interesting and disturbing.  One of those women was actively encouraging acts of terrorism.  What will America do with her?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> And in particular remove it from them because the state considers them foreign. It's a racist law.


Horse shit.

She's had it removed because she's an unrepentant jihadi who enthusiastically involved herself with the most murderous cult on the planet. Not because she's foreign.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 20, 2019)

andysays said:


> Exactly, and while many here may think that it doesn't matter too much in the case of this young woman, there is every possibility that the next time it will be someone we might be less happy about it happening to.



Many?

At the start pretty much all the thread was agreed that if she could get to a place where UK consular service was available she should be treated in the same way as any other UK citizen.  There were a few posters (tim etc) who wanted to invent positions other posters didn't hold so they could prove how much more compassionate and better they were but hardly anybody (if any) held those views.

I can't see much has changed, unless I'm missing something.  The thread remains of that view combined with a general agreement that Javid is an arse and this sleight of hand is shit.  Saying 'fuck her, I don't care what happens to her' is not the same as condoning what the government is up to.

The rest is usual urban arguing over semantics.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Not at all, highlights your hypocrisy perfectly.


Oh shut up.


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's everything to do with what they've done. Don't get involved with beheadings and rape in the name of some pseudo-religious cause overseas and you won't get your citizenship pulled.


Don't get involved in *anything *the Home Secretary might decide means the removal of your citizenship would be 'conducive to the public good', which is rather a broader category...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

andysays said:


> Exactly, and while many here may think that it doesn't matter too much in the case of this young woman, there is every possibility that the next time it will be someone we might be less happy about it happening to.


Ah, that old chestnut. When/if that ever happens happens, _that'll _be the time to kick-off


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

andysays said:


> Don't get involved in *anything *which means the Home Secretary might decide the removal of your citizenship would be 'conducive to the public good', which is rather a broader category...


Well if you can give any examples of that ever happening, let's discuss them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She's had it removed because she's an unrepentant jihadi who enthusiastically involved herself with the most murderous cult on the planet.


she's had it removed because the home secretary's a cunt


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> she's had it removed because the home secretary's a cunt


I think that's probably secondary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I think that's probably secondary.


by no means. no one is accusing this woman of beheadings or waging your actual war. it's very much down to what she believes. and there are a range of other remedies which might have produced a better result than removing her citizenship will. this is sajid javid being a cunt, playing to the gallery and setting a nasty precedent.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> by no means. no one is accusing this woman of beheadings or waging your actual war. it's very much down to what she believes. and there are a range of other remedies which might have produced a better result than removing her citizenship will. this is sajid javid being a cunt, playing to the gallery and setting a nasty precedent.


He's not setting a precedent. Over 100 other people have had their citizenships revoked for joining ISIS.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Horse shit.
> 
> She's had it removed because she's an unrepentant jihadi who enthusiastically involved herself with the most murderous cult on the planet. Not because she's foreign.


She was about nine when the law I'm calling racist was passed so I can't have meant that can I.


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I think that's probably secondary.


She hasn't has her citizenship revoked because she had been found guilty of a crime, even though there are various crimes she's almost certainly guilty of. It's been revoked simply because the HS has decided to do it and because he has the power to do it, so the fact that he's a cunt who is almost certainly doing it for reasons of political expediency and personal advancement is actually pretty central IMO.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> She was about nine when the law I'm calling racist was passed so I can't have meant that can I.


Not sure what you mean.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

andysays said:


> She hasn't has her citizenship revoked because she had been found guilty of a crime, even though there are various crimes she's almost certainly guilty of. It's been revoked simply because the HS has decided to do it and because he has the power to do so, so the fact that he's a cunt who is almost certainly doing it for reasons of political expediency and personal advancement is actually pretty central IMO.


See #1756


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Not sure what you mean.


Maybe read the post you were reacting to. I didn't mention her at all. I said the law was racist.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Maybe read the post you were reacting to. I didn't mention her at all. I said the law was racist.





maomao said:


> And in particular remove it from them because the state considers them foreign.



What bit of this do you think I've misunderstood?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> He's not setting a precedent. Over 100 other people have had their citizenships revoked for joining ISIS.


what do you mean by joining isis? running off and fighting?


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What bit of this do you think I've misunderstood?


'Them' is usually (and definitely in this case) plural. What are you still struggling with?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you mean by joining isis? running off and fighting?


Being a member of. As she herself has said she was.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> 'Them' is usually (and definitely in this case) plural. What are you still struggling with?


 So you weren't referring to her?


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

andysays said:


> Don't get involved in *anything *the Home Secretary might decide means the removal of your citizenship would be 'conducive to the public good', which is rather a broader category...



His discretion isn't unfettered; he'd have to act on way that's compatible with the ECHR.  For instance, this is a _prima facie_ breach of her Article 8 right to family life, so the Home Secretary would have to show that the threat outweighs that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Being a member of. As she herself has said she was.



Shamima Begum 'a bit shocked' over UK plan to revoke citizenship - CNN

what you seem to be saying is that it's better to palm her off onto bangladesh or to have her rot in syria than to follow the existing policy.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> So you weren't referring to her?


Only in the general sense that she is one of the many people this racist law applies to. I don't know why you think I was talking about her. It was a very short post.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 162446
> Shamima Begum 'a bit shocked' over UK plan to revoke citizenship - CNN
> 
> what you seem to be saying is that it's better to palm her off onto bangladesh or to have her rot in syria than to follow the existing policy.



That part of the policy doesn't envisage a dual citizen.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> View attachment 162446
> Shamima Begum 'a bit shocked' over UK plan to revoke citizenship - CNN
> 
> what you seem to be saying is that it's better to palm her off onto bangladesh or to have her rot in syria than to follow the existing policy.


No. I'm saying I don't care what happens to her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. I'm saying I don't care what happens to her.


for someone who doesn't care what happens to her you seem to be very concerned about the matter.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

_._


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> for someone who doesn't care what happens to her you seem to be very concerned about the matter.


I'm just responding to posts


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. I'm saying I don't care what happens to her.



I don't either.  At least not for her own sake. But I do care whether the law is wrong, or being used wrongly. 


Spymaster said:


> But you've fucked-up fundamentally in saying that they're being stripped _because they're foreign. _



Err... I haven't.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Only in the general sense that she is one of the many people this racist law applies to. I don't know why you think I was talking about her. It was a very short post.


But you've fucked-up fundamentally in saying that they're being stripped _because they're considered foreign._ Reductionist wank.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> Err... I haven't.


Sorry. I meant to quote maomao.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 20, 2019)

So, the racisty thing - if a future HoSec removed the UK citizenship of a white, duel UK and New Zealand citizen for going off to join IS, would that be racist?


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> But you've fucked-up fundamentally in saying that they're being stripped _because they're considered foreign. _Reductionist wank.



The law only applies to people with dual citizenship. It says if you have dual citizenship we can take your British citizenship away so because you are foreign British citizenship means something different ti what it does for all the other Britons. Where have I fucked up?


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So, the racisty thing - if a future HoSec removed the UK citizenship of a white, duel UK and New Zealand citizen for going off to join IS, would that be racist?



I'd bet the nice civilised Western governments would have a chat between themselves rather than just taking the first opportunity to dump it on the other.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Where have I fucked up?


In entirely ignoring the context.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> In entirely ignoring the context.




Yes. That was the whole point of the fucking post. I was saying the law was fundamentally racist regardless of the fucking context. Well done.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> I was saying the law was fundamentally racist regardless of the fucking context.



That's wrong. It's not possible _because someone is foreign _it's possible because they hold two or more nationalities. If you hold dual nationality you are subject to different laws (and in some cases benefits) to people who hold just one. 

Still, at least we've moved on from 'it's because she's brown'.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> That's wrong. It's not possible _because someone is foreign _it's possible because they hold two or more nationalities.



People who only hold British nationality generally aren't foreign or am I missing something here?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> People who only hold British nationality generally aren't foreign or am I missing something here?


What do you reckon?

Have a think.

Clue: am I foreign?


----------



## A380 (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> she's had it removed because the home secretary's a cunt


Correlation is not necessarily causation.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What do you reckon?
> 
> Have a think.
> 
> Clue: am I foreign?


Yes. According to that law. Though if they deport you I wish they'd do it to a country with no Internet access.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Yes. According to that law. Though if they deport you I wish they'd do it to a country with no Internet access.


you'll have to wish a bit harder because if they deport him he's going all the way to ireland.


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> What do you reckon?
> 
> Have a think.
> 
> Clue: am I foreign?


If I remember correctly, you've actively sought Irish nationality, so you can legitimately be regarded as 'foreign' if the HS decides to revoke your citizenship. 

I'm not convinced it's legitimate to do so on the basis that your Mum (possibly) had Irish citizenship when you were born, which is the situation under discussion here.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> you'll have to wish a bit harder because if they deport him he's going all the way to ireland.


Is there anything else really fucking obvious you'd like to add to the conversation or is that it for now?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Yes. According to that law. Though if they deport you I wish they'd do it to a country with no Internet access.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Is there anything else really fucking obvious you'd like to add to the conversation or is that it for now?


yeh auld Spymaster's sitting back and laughing at the state you've worked yourself into, you've really made his afternoon


----------



## hash tag (Feb 20, 2019)

I gather that apart from being British and Bangladeshi she could also have a claim to being Dutch (had baby by a Dutch National).
What if all 3 countries stripped her of her citizenship (turned her down for it), what would happen then?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

andysays said:


> If I remember correctly, you've actively sought Irish nationality, so you can legitimately be regarded as 'foreign' if the HS decides to revoke your citizenship.


If I'd joined ISIS he could have removed my UK citizenship before I'd ever sought an Irish passport. The RoI government considered me to be an Irish citizen from birth, same as the Bangladeshi government considers Begum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So, the racisty thing - if a future HoSec removed the UK citizenship of a white, duel UK and New Zealand citizen for going off to join IS, would that be racist?


I think it is naive to ignore the race angle here. Not least for the open goal extremists are being given - 'You think you belong here, that it's your home, well look, _they don't_. And they get to decide. You will never belong'. 

But lay that to one side. You don't need the race angle to see how plainly wrong this is. To pick up on those calling it racist is to pick on a weaker point in the argument rather than the much stronger ones.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I gather that apart from being British and Bangladeshi she could also have a claim to being Dutch (had baby by a Dutch National).
> What if all 3 countries stripped her of her citizenship (turned her down for it), what would happen then?


oh well spotted


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> If I'd joined ISIS he could have removed my UK citizenship before I'd ever sought an Irish passport. The RoI government considered me to be an Irish citizen from birth, same as the Bangladeshi government considers Begum.


i wonder if you can be both in daesh and a freemason


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it is naive to ignore the race angle here. Not least for the open goal extremists are being given - 'You think you belong here, that it's your home, well look, _they don't_. And they get to decide. You will never belong'.
> 
> But lay that to one side. You don't need the race angle to see how plainly wrong this is. To pick up on those calling it racist is to pick on a weaker point in the argument rather than the much stronger ones.



For me, the fact that two-tier Britishness is likely to be counterproductive is one of the better arguments against this law.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> I gather that apart from being British and Bangladeshi she could also have a claim to being Dutch (had baby by a Dutch National).
> What if all 3 countries stripped her of her citizenship (turned her down for it), what would happen then?


I think it's a first past the post system.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 20, 2019)

OK, so she tries Britain first and we let her in because it is her first port of call. That makes sense.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder if you can be both in daesh and a freemason


I reckon they'd fail on the "being of good character" bit.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon they'd fail on the "being of good character" bit.



But they'd be okay in the "belief in a supreme being" stuff.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> But they'd be okay in the "belief in a supreme being" stuff.


The whole 'girls and boys should be kept separate' thing too.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon they'd fail on the "being of good character" bit.


Nah. Maybe in the early days, but I think Daesh have dropped their standards quite a bit as time has gone on.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I reckon they'd fail on the "being of good character" bit.



(((Spy's ambitions of joining ISIS)))


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> (((Spy's ambitions of joining ISIS)))


if you watch spy, he's never an early adopter, he often comes in after something's jumped the shark


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> But they'd be okay in the "belief in a supreme being" stuff.


Yep. They smoke that one.


----------



## andysays (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> If I'd joined ISIS he could have removed my UK citizenship before I'd ever sought an Irish passport. The RoI government considered me to be an Irish citizen from birth, same as the Bangladeshi government considers Begum.


I don't think we should push the equivalence between Eire and Bangladesh too far as their rules aren't exactly the same.

As I understand it, Begum's supposed Bangladeshi citizenship is based on her mum having been a Bangladeshi citizenship at the time of her, Begum's, birth, which appears not to be certain. 

But the main point of difference is that Begum considers herself a British citizen, not a Bangladeshi.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> OK, so she tries Britain first ...



I doubt she'll be joining Britain First - Official Website! anytime soon.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh auld Spymaster's sitting back and laughing at the state you've worked yourself into, you've really made his afternoon


Ah so he was just pretending to be functionally illiterate. Nice one.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

andysays said:


> But the main point of difference is that Begum considers herself a British citizen, not a Bangladeshi.


Begum considered herself to be a citizen of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, until a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think it is naive to ignore the race angle here. Not least for the open goal extremists are being given - 'You think you belong here, that it's your home, well look, _they don't_. And they get to decide. You will never belong'.
> 
> But lay that to one side. You don't need the race angle to see how plainly wrong this is. To pick up on those calling it racist is to pick on a weaker point in the argument rather than the much stronger ones.



See, while I'm not a complete fool and see some dangers in this new, more muscular interpretation of the legal structure of citizenship - as eloquently set out by danny la rouge - i'm also not blind to the dangers of a 'one way right', which is what citizenship with no limitations is, nor am I blind to the potential deterrent effect such revocation might have.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Ah so he was just pretending to be functionally illiterate.


Still. Doesn't. Get. It.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Ah so he was just pretending to be functionally illiterate. Nice one.


he's had a nice rise out of you


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> he's had a nice rise out of you



Oh fuck off you pointless twat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Oh fuck off you pointless twat.


despite affecting a wide vocabulary you have a miniscule and dull repertoire of insults which don't improve through repetition.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 20, 2019)

The first question I have to ask is what's with all the journalists going out there to interview her? iI thought it was supposed to be a dangerous warzone but they seem to be acting like they're on a day trip to Margate which  makes me doubt Javid's it's too dangerous to risk lives spiel.


Spymaster said:


> Looks like she's going to give the Dutch a whirl. Let's see how that goes.


Whilst I am always a sucker when it comes to the trials and tribulations of true love, Not well I would imagine, I know several men who have foreign spouses, all of them jumped through many overly complicated hoops to get their wives here taking better than 2 years in one case and that's not citizenship that's permission to live here before they can apply for citizenship.
I daresay getting a foreign wife into Holland isn't any easier and that's before the fact that all the guys I know were fine upstanding citizens and not failed jihadi.
That reads to me like something she thought up on the spur of the moment and has no idea of the obstacles she faces. She clearly doesn't fully understand the gravity of her situation or the complexity of the law.Javid knows that this girl has few people rooting for her to come here and is making political capital out of the situation. Have I mentioned I think he's a twat?
I think he will lose on appeal and hope he does, not for her sake but because it sets a legal precedent no civilized society should ever accept.


Athos said:


> But, either way, it seems the government is willing to give it a shot. Possibly because they think they're on solid ground, possibly because they want to look tough notwithstanding they know they'll lose, and possibly because, even if they're wrong about the law, the difficulties she faces in challenging it might keep her out for a long time (during which the legal position could be overtaken by events e.g. her death).


Agree totally with this, Javid has got whatever benefit he can out of this now by saying he is taking her citizenship, even if he loses the case 2 or 3 years from now it will personally cost him nothing.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Oh fuck off you pointless twat.


Now now, maomao.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)




----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> despite affecting a wide vocabulary you have a miniscule and dull repertoire of insults which don't improve through repetition.



I don't waste good abuse on pointless twats.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

The39thStep said:


>



Priceless isn't it?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 20, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> The first question I have to ask is what's with all the journalists going out there to interview her? iI thought it was supposed to be a dangerous warzone but they seem to be acting like they're on a day trip to Margate which  makes me doubt Javid's it's too dangerous to risk lives spiel.
> 
> Whilst I am always a sucker when it comes to the trials and tribulations of true love, Not well I would imagine, I know several men who have foreign spouses, all of them jumped through many overly complicated hoops to get their wives here taking better than 2 years in one case and that's not citizenship that's permission to live here before they can apply for citizenship.
> I daresay getting a foreign wife into Holland isn't any easier and that's before the fact that all the guys I know were fine upstanding citizens and not failed jihadi.
> ...



She's been well and truly stitched up, by her own stupidity, the spitefulness of the British press, and the cuntitude of the Home Sec.  If she'd kept her head down and said nothing, she would have been forgotten about pretty quickly and probably able to sneak back home when no-one was looking.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> She's been well and truly stitched up, by her own stupidity, the spitefulness of the British press, and the cuntitude of the Home Sec.  If she'd kept her head down and said nothing, she would have been forgotten about pretty quickly and probably able to sneak back home when no-one was looking.


She could probably have just about managed that if she'd just said "I fucked right up, I was brainwashed by propaganda, ISIS are evil, I'm sorry". 

"I've no regrets" and "severed heads don't faze me" however, don't quite cut the mustard when you're trying to convince people that you pose no threat.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 20, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> Agree totally with this, Javid has got whatever benefit he can out of this now by saying he is taking her citizenship, even if he loses the case 2 or 3 years from now it will personally cost him nothing.



It will cost us though, the inevitable appeals through to supreme courts will no doubt cost at least 6, more likely 7 figures of public cash. Take the money of Javid and his oversized bonce.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> She could probably have just about managed that if she'd just said "I fucked right up, I was brainwashed by propaganda, ISIS are evil, I'm sorry".
> 
> "I've no regrets" and "severed heads don't faze me" however, don't quite cut the mustard when you're trying to convince people that you pose no threat.



We all react to and cope with stressful situations in different ways; anger, guilt, sorrow....pretend they didn't happen etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> I don't waste good abuse on pointless twats.


You don't have any good abuse

All you have is a load of effing and blinding which would shame a 16 year auld


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> We all react to and cope with stressful situations in different ways; anger, guilt, sorrow....pretend they didn't happen etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

The39thStep said:


>


Poor auld Saul


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 20, 2019)

She seems be being interviewed on a daily basis by all press outfits giving immediate response to everything that is happening.  Its a really weird and fucked situation.  She's also sounding increasingly coached in some of the language she uses, whether that is by the press I don't know.  Didn't she give birth a day or so ago?  The press are making a fucked situation way more fucked, leave her be with her child.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> She's been well and truly stitched up, by her own stupidity, the spitefulness of the British press, and the cuntitude of the Home Sec.  If she'd kept her head down and said nothing, she would have been forgotten about pretty quickly and probably able to sneak back home when no-one was looking.


Lets not forget her Cage supporting solicitor


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> We all react to and cope with stressful situations in different ways; anger, guilt, sorrow....


... saying it's ok to behead people, keep slaves, bomb teen concerts ... 

Just a coping mechanism. Poor girl.


----------



## hash tag (Feb 20, 2019)

Did she say it's OK to behead people? I thought she said she wasn't phased by seeing heads in bins or such like.
Not forgetting she was groomed (brainwashed) at a young, influential age.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Did she say it's OK to behead people? .


Yes she did. 'Islamically allowed' was her exact phrase. I partially agree with Teaboy here. Initially, it must have seemed a bit of luck to be found by a tv crew and able to publicise her case. Now she has become the public face and symbol of a whole wider debate and she may well be fucked for it. Not so sure about 'leave her alone to be with her child', though, tbh, given that if she does get her wish and comes back here, she will be arrested and her baby will be taken away from her. We can't doubt that.

One thing she said that interested me and I would have thought ought to have the authorities in the UK wanting to speak to her was when she said that she became religious shortly before she left. I would want to know exactly how and under whose influence that happened. Another part of the wider story here has to be working out how the process of radicalisation has been working.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

Some of that process is fairly well documented already . In this case a huge influence was a group of women ISIS supporters al-Khansaa Brigade. Aqsa Mahmood from Scotland was/is a big influence in recruiting other women. Heres a few tips from her :


> *Leaving your family*
> The first phone call you make once you cross the border is one of the most difficult things you will ever have to do. Your parents are already worried enough over where you are, whether you are okay and what’s happened. How does a parent who has little Islamic knowledge and understanding comprehend why their son or daughter has left their well-off life, education and a bright future behind to go live in a war-torn country? Most likely they will blame themselves, they will think they have done something. But until they truly understand from the bottom of their heart that you have done this action sincerely for Allah’s sake they will live in hope that you will return.
> 
> *Covering up*
> ...





> “[I swear to Allah] there’s nothing more beautiful than bringing fear into the hearts of the [non-believers] by attacking them where they think they are safest,” the woman wrote soon after she surfaced in Syria.
> 
> Her messages also offer a glimpse into the recruiting methods employed by ISIS propagandists.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I doubt she'll be joining anytime soon.


Pls don't link to far right sites


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Pls don't link to far right sites



I thought I had broken the link, I have now.


----------



## Theisticle (Feb 20, 2019)

She’s a U.K. citizen, not dual national Shamima Begum will not be allowed here, says Bangladesh


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 20, 2019)

Theisticle said:


> She’s a U.K. citizen, not dual national Shamima Begum will not be allowed here, says Bangladesh



Damn, beat me to it!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Theisticle said:


> She’s a U.K. citizen, not dual national Shamima Begum will not be allowed here, says Bangladesh


yes, I thought that might be the response.

_Who? Never heard of her. No record of her anywhere here. Not ours.
_
One thing we can consistently rely on is the thorough, all-levels incompetence of this government.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Theisticle said:


> She’s a U.K. citizen, not dual national Shamima Begum will not be allowed here, says Bangladesh


And like so much else this abysmal government turns its mind to, their withdrawal of citizenship turns into a clusterfuck


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One thing we can consistently rely on is the thorough, all-levels incompetence of this government.



Javid has fucked up here, he made this the main story on a lot of front pages this morning, putting the Labour split into second place.

If he had left it 24 hours, it would be the main story, instead of the Tory split.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 20, 2019)

Javid has fucked up by revoking her British citizenship. End of.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 20, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I thought I had broken the link, I have now.


still not broken.

edit the hyperlink


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Javid has fucked up by revoking her British citizenship. End of.


and tbh a lot of the damage is already done in terms of demonstrating this government's view of its citizens of Bangladeshi origin. Both morally reprehensible and fucking stupid.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 20, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> And like so much else this abysmal government turns its mind to, their withdrawal of citizenship turns into a clusterfuck



Nah, the Bangladeshis are just playing hard to get for some kind of bribe. They’ll change their mind for a bit of silver.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> and tbh a lot of the damage is already done in terms of demonstrating this government's view of its citizens of Bangladeshi origin. Both morally reprehensible and fucking stupid.



Not just Bangladeshi, anyone from a BAME grouping.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> and tbh a lot of the damage is already done in terms of demonstrating this government's view of its citizens of Bangladeshi origin.



Why do you keep saying that? It demonstrates a view of people considered to be of dual nationality who join ISIS. Not specifically Bangladeshis.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 20, 2019)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> still not broken.
> 
> edit the hyperlink



Fucking hell, using the xenForo break link function left the '!' as a link. 

Sorted now.


----------



## Theisticle (Feb 20, 2019)

This was probably Javid’s plan all along, kick this into the courts for 1-2 years, and in that time, become party leader, and promise to scrap the Human Rights Act. We’ll get ‘Enemies of the People’ rhetoric on steroids. Javid vs ‘illiberal, unelected judges


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

Dogsauce said:


> Nah, the Bangladeshis are just playing hard to get for some kind of bribe. They’ll change their mind for a bit of silver.


I wouldn't be so sure


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 20, 2019)

"Of approximately 900 people who had gone to Syria from the UK, 20% were believed to have been killed and about 40% had returned to the UK, the home secretary said. “I assure this house the majority have been assessed to pose no or a low-security status,” "

I bet a fair number slipped through the net due to the massive under-staffing of border control and police.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

gentlegreen said:


> "Of approximately 900 people who had gone to Syria from the UK, 20% were believed to have been killed and about 40% had returned to the UK, the home secretary said. “I assure this house the majority have been assessed to pose no or a low-security status,” "
> 
> I bet a fair number slipped through the net due to the massive under-staffing of border control and police.


How often have we seen people who were assessed to pose little or no threat go on to kill a load of people?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why do you keep saying that? It demonstrates a view of people considered to be of dual nationality who join ISIS. Not specifically Bangladeshis.


Why do you keep trying to downplay it? This is crude dogwhistle politics javid is playing here. You seem not to recognise it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do you keep trying to downplay it? This is crude dogwhistle politics javid is playing here. You seem not to recognise it.


He doesn't give a shit. It doesn't affect him. He is firmly cushioned by his class and his resources, just like Javid


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> He doesn't give a shit. It doesn't affect him. He is firmly cushioned by his class and his resources, just like Javid


Oh, you're back!

Any chance you can say something different next time?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why do you keep trying to downplay it?


Because it's simply not true. 

Unless of course you're suggesting that all British Bangladeshis should fear this because they're all involved with IS.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, you're back!
> 
> Any chance you can say something different next time?


Nope. I'll keep speaking the truth thanks.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Nope. I'll keep speaking the truth thanks.



Race Card Rita, truth warrior! At least accuse me of something else for a bit of variety.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Bangladesh are denying she's a Bangladeshi citizen:

Shamima Begum will not be allowed here, says Bangladesh



> The government of Bangladesh is deeply concerned that [Begum] has been erroneously identified as a holder of dual citizenship,” Shahrial Alam, state minister of foreign affairs, said in a statement issued to the Guardian, adding that his government had learned of Britain’s intention to cancel her citizenship rights from media reports.



And honestly, if she was Irish or a New Zealander there would have been a chat with the embassy. This is just 'fuck off you're not really British'.


----------



## Theisticle (Feb 20, 2019)

In normal times, such an overt act of racist gerrymandering would lead to resignations.

Javid will only benefit. The Tories have hit another moral low.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Race Card Rita, truth warrior! At least accuse me of something else for a bit of variety.



Nice dog whistle response you nasty cunt. Proving my point entirely.


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 20, 2019)

Theisticle said:


> In normal times, such an overt act of racist gerrymandering would lead to resignations.
> 
> Javid will only benefit. The Tories have hit another moral low.



They'd need to have morals in the first place.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Nice dog whistle response you nasty cunt.


So you get to come on here accusing me of all sorts, but when I respond with a basic truth, I'm the nasty cunt?

Yeah, ok!


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> Bangladesh are denying she's a Bangladeshi citizen:
> 
> Shamima Begum will not be allowed here, says Bangladesh.


An immigration solicitor on C4 news just now said that anyone with Bangladeshi parents is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen without having to apply, but that citizenship lapses if they don't claim it formally by the age of 21. So someone's wrong.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Does anyone know more about what happened to 'Jihadi Jack' Letts? Was his British citizenship revoked or not? The home office were playing their cards really close to their chests which is odd given they seem to have a really tough line on this in other cases.

Suspected British Isis fighter could face repatriation to Canada


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> An immigration solicitor on C4 news just now said that anyone with Bangladeshi parents is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen without having to apply, but that citizenship lapses if they don't claim it formally by the age of 21. So someone's wrong.



A practicioner of Bangladeshi law? Or a UK lawyer who'd looked it up on Wikipedia like Sajid Javid did?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Does anyone know more about what happened to 'Jihadi Jack' Letts? Was his British citizenship revoked or not?


Not. According to this.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> A practicioner of Bangladeshi law? Or a UK lawyer who'd looked it up on Wikipedia like Sajid Javid did?


No idea. He had a muslim name and the banner called him an "immigration and human rights lawyer".


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Quelle fucking surprise.

...and John Humpreys didn't destroy that lawyers argument at all...he tried by saying 'some immigrants are White' but hadn't figured for the differential treatment of Jihadi Jack and couldn't give one example of this tactic being used where the person is White.

The other guy on the panel danced around the point and conceded it was unlikely that it would be and then tried to sugarcoat it by saying he was concerned about the '2 tier system'.

That you use that article as evidence is pretty fucking ironic all told given that it's headline is an outright lie and if you had actually heard the exchange/interview you would know that.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> A practicioner of Bangladeshi law? Or a UK lawyer who'd looked it up on Wikipedia like Sajid Javid did?


It was this guy.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> That you use that article as evidence is pretty fucking ironic all told given that it's headline is an outright lie and if you had actually heard the exchange/interview you would know that.


Calm down. I did a google news search for "Jack Letts" and linked the first result.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Calm down. I did a google news search for "Jack Letts" and linked the first result.



Race card Rita.
Calm down. 

Fuck off.


----------



## Edie (Feb 20, 2019)

Watching the videos of her she just doesn’t have a clue. Sounds odd in the circumstances but she comes across as completely naive.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

maomao said:


> A practicioner of Bangladeshi law? Or a UK lawyer who'd looked it up on Wikipedia like Sajid Javid did?



In fairness, there's no reason for us to trust a Bangladeshi politician any more than Javid.  And, on the face of the act I mentioned earlier, it appears that she is a Bangladeshi citizen.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Fuck off.


Perhaps I should fuck off and falsely accuse another poster of pretending to be black and posting fake pictures of themselves?


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Does anyone know more about what happened to 'Jihadi Jack' Letts? Was his British citizenship revoked or not? The home office were playing their cards really close to their chests which is odd given they seem to have a really tough line on this in other cases.
> 
> Suspected British Isis fighter could face repatriation to Canada



As far as I can tell, he's not been stripped of his citizenship, which, _prima facie_, does suggest a difference in how this law is applied, based on race.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps I should fuck off and falsely accuse another poster of pretending to be black and posting fake pictures of themselves?



Oh...on the ropes and attempting to come out for a sucker punch eh?

According to people I trust who have meet her including a Black woman, that picture looks fuck all like her just like I suspected for the reasons I did. But you continue lying for mates, allowing others to make paki and nignog jokes about you on these boards, pretending that the racism you clearly don't understand is in everyone else's head.

I'm alright Javid indeed. Off you fuck.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> As far as I can tell, he's not been stripped of his citizenship, which, _prima facie_, does suggest a difference in how this law is applied, based on race.


That one case would appear to do so but we'd need to get a look at the other 150 dual nationality men and women who've lost their UK rights to draw any firm conclusions.


----------



## maomao (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No idea. He had a muslim name and the banner called him an "immigration and human rights lawyer".


And how quick and fair do you think a country undergoing huge refugee and environmental crises, where torture and disappearances are common, that barely even qualifies as a democracy is at resolving human rights disputes?

Surely given that she hasn't taken up her right to citizenship all they'd have to do is put out a law in the morning changing the age to 18 or just saying matters off national security trump the right to take up citizenship for those born abroad and any potential application is fucked anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Oh...on the ropes and attempting to come out for a sucker punch eh?


Nah, just annoying you.


> According to people I trust who have meet her including a Black woman, that picture looks fuck all like her just like I said.


Either you're lying or they are. Probably the former.


> But you continue lying for mates ...


Never happened. 

Keep trying.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nah, just annoying you.
> 
> Either you're lying or they are. Probably the former.
> 
> ...



I don't need to try, it's all true and you know it.

You just don't have an off button with this tedious shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ... it's all true and you know it.


Fraid not. Quite a few people know how much of a dick you made of yourself playing Race card Rita on that thread. 

As I said, keep trying.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Fraid not. Quite a few people know how much of a dick you made of yourself playing Race card Rita on that thread.
> 
> As I said, keep trying.



It may have looked that way based on your lying yes. ..and then other people met her. 

You are a pretty fucking shit friend as well bringing this up in an attempt to get one over on me today. If you hadn't I would not have mentioned any of this stuff, not least because she hasn't posted in a fair while. She was keen for it to go away as I remember the last time it surfaced.

I don't need to try. You've clearly always been a cunt, hence your actual nickname.


----------



## xenon (Feb 20, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> She seems be being interviewed on a daily basis by all press outfits giving immediate response to everything that is happening.  Its a really weird and fucked situation.  She's also sounding increasingly coached in some of the language she uses, whether that is by the press I don't know.  Didn't she give birth a day or so ago?  The press are making a fucked situation way more fucked, leave her be with her child.


I reckon the lawyer her family have hired has been getting advice to her via them and the press. Very different tone today.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Fraid not. Quite a few people know how much of a dick you made of yourself playing Race card Rita on that thread.
> 
> As I said, keep trying.



I think she was completely out of order in that incident and in some of her conduct towards you in this thread, but, as much as have no time for Rutita1, is hard to argue that there's not a _prima facie_ case of racism based on the differing treatment of Letts and Begum.  Let's try to keep to that issue eh?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It may have looked that way based on your lying yes. ..and then other people met her.


Keep digging. You, they, or both, are the liars.


> You've clearly always been a cunt ...


 That's the first thing you've posted on this thread that isn't total bollocks!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Keep digging. You, they, or both, are the liars.


 I, they, we are not.



> That's the first thing you've posted on this thread that isn't total bollocks!


 It's not the first thing at all. But cunt on.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Athos said:


> ... hard to argue that there's not a _prima facie_ case of racism based on the differing treatment of Letts and Begum.  Let's try to keep to that issue eh?


As I said in #1887, I agree.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Because it's simply not true.
> 
> Unless of course you're suggesting that all British Bangladeshis should fear this because they're all involved with IS.



Others have tried to explain this but just to be clear - this can be applied to people who have not been involved with Daesh at all. This could even be applied to people who join up with the YPG to fight Daesh.


----------



## xenon (Feb 20, 2019)

hash tag said:


> Did she say it's OK to behead people? I thought she said she wasn't phased by seeing heads in bins or such like.
> Not forgetting she was groomed (brainwashed) at a young, influential age.



People keep saying this but it doesn't make it true. 15 YO's are impressionable. It doesn't follow that any iborrent views they develop are the result of brain washing, grooming. People aren't programable like that outside some extreme circumstances. If you know how her coming to join Daesh came to pass, the extent to which she was groomed or not, then please tell us otherwise it's just empty speculation.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I, they, them are not.
> 
> It's not the first thing at all. But cunt on.



Come on, this is a really interesting thread - let's not detail this with ancient and irrelevant beef, for all our sakes.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> As I said in #1887, I agree.



No you didn't. You continued with the dog whistle accusing me of playing the fucking race card and bringing up old shit because you don't have the fucking gumption to admit you have been kicking back all day about something that is fucking true.

You didn't even want to entertain it because it doesn't affect you.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 20, 2019)

xenon said:


> People aren't programable like that outside some extreme circumstances.



Isn't that just empty speculation?

How do you know there weren't extreme circumstances?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I, they, we are not.


The fact that you won't just admit that you got it spectacularly wrong and even now try to bullshit your way out of it speaks volumes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 20, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Isn't that just empty speculation?
> 
> How do you know there weren't extreme circumstances?


Speculation's our meat and drink and we love nothing more than empty speculation


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No you didn't. You continued with the dog whistle accusing me of playing the fucking race card and bringing up old shit because you don't have the fucking gumption to admit you have been kicking back all day about something that is fucking true.
> 
> You didn't even want to entertain it because it doesn't affect you.


Perhaps you should pay more attention to the part of Athos' post that I actually responded to.

You're rage is clouding your judgement now!


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that you won't just admit that you got it spectacularly wrong and even now try to bullshit your way out of it speaks volumes.


True enough. But let's not detail this thread with that stuff, eh?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that you won't just admit that you got it spectacularly wrong and even now try to bullshit your way out of it speaks volumes.



You lied. That was confirmed by others. That speaks volumes. The way you have dug your heels in on this thread speaks volumes. Your lack of understanding about the dynamics of racism and the way you attack me for having a greater awareness of it speaks volumes.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> You lied. That was confirmed by others.


It can't have been because it's simply not true. 

Keep trying though. If you say it enough you may convince someone else.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 20, 2019)

Edie said:


> Watching the videos of her she just doesn’t have a clue. Sounds odd in the circumstances but she comes across as completely naive.



Yeah, surprisingly I feel some sympathy although I’m someone she’d be happy to see thrown off a roof. I started thinking let her rot but now think she’s naive and child like ~ original reports when the girls left the UK where that they were intelligent and studying to be in areas like medicine ~ well this one isn’t!  Looking at her reading the HO letter I feel awful for her but I know I shouldn’t. 

She’s been used and exploited by the press ~ I don’t care about her but she is British and let her make her own way to a consulate ~ she is not a Bangladeshi.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Perhaps you should pay more attention to the part of Athos' post that I actually responded to.
> 
> You're rage is clouding your judgement now!



I am perfectly calm. Bushed but ready for bed. Spent the day doing a job  I love that actually is meaningful and worthwhile other than sat here like you defending this fuckery. You clearly need to concentrate on that which clouds your own judgement.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I am perfectly calm.


Yes, you seem so!


----------



## xenon (Feb 20, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Isn't that just empty speculation?
> 
> How do you know there weren't extreme circumstances?



I don't. But you don't need extreme circs for people to join cults and a like. People talking about grooming are making an unhelpful presumption and it's a drastic simplification of what drives some people down certain routes.


----------



## xenon (Feb 20, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Isn't that just empty speculation?
> 
> How do you know there weren't extreme circumstances?



I can't find the posts off hand but Red Cat made this point far more eloquently earlier in the thread.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

RubyBlue said:


> Yeah, surprisingly I feel some sympathy although I’m someone she’d be happy to see thrown off a roof. I started thinking let her rot but now think she’s naive and child like ~ original reports when the girls left the UK where that they were intelligent and studying to be in areas like medicine ~ well this one isn’t!  Looking at her reading the HO letter I feel awful for her but I know I shouldn’t.
> 
> She’s been used and exploited by the press ~ I don’t care about her but she is British and let her make her own way to a consulate ~ she is not a Bangladeshi.




I've been struggling with this all week to be fair. What keeps ringing in my ears, is the comment 'I'm not the same naive/stupid 15 year old I was'...all the while saying and repeating all the awful and utterly naive and off key shit. 19 may be an adult but it's no age and I also think the media is taking advantage at this stage.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 20, 2019)

Edie said:


> Watching the videos of her she just doesn’t have a clue. Sounds odd in the circumstances but she comes across as completely naive.



I think there are elements of this that can never make sense. We watch her and how can a 19 year old be saying those things, have done what she has, believe what she did/does?


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I've been struggling with this all week to be fair. What keeps ringing in my ears, is the comment 'I'm not the same naive/stupid 15 year old I was'...all the while saying and repeating all the awful and utterly naive and off key shit. 19 may be an adult but it's no age and I also think the media is taking advantage at this stage.



Her complete lack of self-awareness is the gift that keeps on giving, to the tabloids.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I've been struggling with this all week to be fair. What keeps ringing in my ears, is the comment 'I'm not the same naive/stupid 15 year old I was'...all the while saying and repeating all the awful and utterly naive and off key shit. 19 may be an adult but it's no age and I also think the media is taking advantage at this stage.



Aye, lets not forget journalists are racking up thousands of pounds travelling to a refugee camp and interviewing her purely for clickbait and rage shares. 

They don't even have the decency to run reports of conditions in the camps or interview anyone else while they're there.


----------



## Edie (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I've been struggling with this all week to be fair. What keeps ringing in my ears, is the comment 'I'm not the same naive/stupid 15 year old I was'...all the while saying and repeating all the awful and utterly naive and off key shit. 19 may be an adult but it's no age and I also think the media is taking advantage at this stage.


Oh yeah whatever else is going on the media are joyfully screwing her.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 20, 2019)

Look like Britain might be taking its lead from the Trump administration, which removed this woman's citizenship on very shaky grounds:


> Ms. Muthana is one of at least 13 people identified as Americans — almost all of them women and children — who are being held in detention camps by Kurdish forces in northeastern Syria. Many of them are facing similar issues as Ms. Muthana does, with their citizenship being challenged on technical grounds. In contrast, a majority of American men caught on the battlefield were the subject of sealed indictments and have been repatriated to face charges.



Alabama Woman Who Joined ISIS Can’t Return Home, Pompeo Says


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I think there are elements of this that can never make sense. We watch her and how can a 19 year old be saying those things, have done what she has, believe what she did/does?



I think this is just it ~ I can’t quite understand or comprehend it. I’ve changed my tune though ~ she should come back to the UK if possible but with no effort on our part ~ even then I would feel shit if she died en route.

Any fool would know that Holland would never admit her ~ unfortunately she is a problem for the UK.

Sky news and ITV will be gagging to get her reaction to hearing that Bangladesh and Holland have both said no.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 20, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I think there are elements of this that can never make sense. We watch her and how can a 19 year old be saying those things, have done what she has, believe what she did/does?



She expresses herself in a very odd way, not just flat, but saying things like my 'old' son talking about her son who died and 'it was a shock' seems the extent of her emotional vocabulary. I must admit to being surprised by these...limitations.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

Wanted : ISIS supporter who joins ISIS state who is media savvy .


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 20, 2019)

That's not what I meant.

I was talking about her mental state.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> That's not what I meant.
> 
> I was talking about her mental state.



Probably not that many people in a sound mental state who sign up for an organisation whose MO is mass rape, torture, and murder,  to be honest.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

The mental state of someone living in a caliphate dream who realises the game is up or the mental state of someone who thought the ISIS brand was better than any other brand of Islam or the mental state of an ISIS supporter who thinks the bombing in Manchester ( and logically any other act of Jihaadism ) is ok ? Or the mental state of someone who leaves their pay rents and joins the IsIS state?  
What about the mental state of their victims ?


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 20, 2019)

so at least this shit story has given katie hopkins career a  resurgence


----------



## RD2003 (Feb 20, 2019)

The term might be a bit overused in these days when pop-psychology is unfortunately all the rage, but this young woman is quite clearly a narcissist. All her problems stem from this fact.


----------



## Athos (Feb 20, 2019)

Clearly, she doesn't appreciate the wrongness of what she's done.   Whilst some might argue that lessens her culpability, it must increase the risk of repeating such folly.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 20, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> The mental state of someone living in a caliphate dream who realises the game is up or the mental state of someone who thought the ISIS brand was better than any other brand of Islam or the mental state of an ISIS supporter who thinks the bombing in Manchester ( and logically any other act of Jihaadism ) is ok ? Or the mental state of someone who leaves their pay rents and joins the IsIS state?
> What about the mental state of their victims ?



I was posting in response to posts about her naivety. She seems extremely cut off in a really odd way, it's quite striking to me. 

What about the mental state of her victims? Do you think I'm making excuses?


----------



## RD2003 (Feb 20, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> so at least this shit story has given katie hopkins career a  resurgence


Hopkins is also an obvious narcissist.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 20, 2019)

i know but itv rolling commentary for this shit 

dear god


----------



## xenon (Feb 20, 2019)

As an aside, there was a great blog a few years ago called the Last Damn Psychiatrist. Mainly consisted of this American psych's rants about how everyone was a narcissist.


----------



## RD2003 (Feb 20, 2019)

xenon said:


> As an aside, there was a great blog a few years ago called the Last Damn Psychiatrist. Mainly consisted of this American psych's rants about how everyone was a narcissist.


That's what I meant about it being an overused term. But I think it does apply in this case.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 20, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I was posting in response to posts about her naivety. She seems extremely cut off in a really odd way, it's quite striking to me.
> 
> What about the mental state of her victims? Do you think I'm making excuses?


No mate wasn't saying that . It was a wider question to the thread .


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

RD2003 said:


> That's what I meant about it being an overused term. But I think it does apply in this case.



How do you think it adds to our understanding?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> Probably not that many people in a sound mental state who sign up for an organisation whose MO is mass rape, torture, and murder,  to be honest.



But I was describing something quite specific about her state not making a comment on whether she was of sound mental state or not. But thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> She expresses herself in a very odd way, not just flat, but saying things like my 'old' son talking about her son who died and 'it was a shock' seems the extent of her emotional vocabulary. I must admit to being surprised by these...limitations.


Yeh cos if only she'd been proper British and stayed in school she might have both a broader vocabulary and be better able to express herself in a more nuanced way


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh cos if only she'd been proper British and stayed in school she might have both a broader vocabulary and be better able to express herself in a more nuanced way



Really? You make yourself look like a prick saying that to me. I'm pretty sure nobody else reading my post read that into it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I was posting in response to posts about her naivety. She seems extremely cut off in a really odd way, it's quite striking to me.
> 
> What about the mental state of her victims? Do you think I'm making excuses?


Soz who are her victims?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Soz who are her victims?



It was a response to another post. Try reading again.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> But I was describing something quite specific about her state not making a comment on whether she was of sound mental state or not. But thanks for pointing that out.



I get that. And you're right, I think - there's something very odd about the way she comes across.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> I get that. And you're right, I think - there's something very odd about the way she comes across.


Regardless of what she's done she's just lost her friends, two children, been bombed out of her home and put in a refugee camp. It would be weird if she didn't have some sort of ptsd surely?


----------



## weepiper (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> She expresses herself in a very odd way, not just flat, but saying things like my 'old' son talking about her son who died and 'it was a shock' seems the extent of her emotional vocabulary. I must admit to being surprised by these...limitations.


She comes over as disassociating.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

weepiper said:


> She comes over as disassociating.



Yes, that's a possibility. It may also point to preexisting vulnerability.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Really? You make yourself look like a prick saying that to me. I'm pretty sure nobody else reading my post read that into it.


Saying that to you?  Of course it would be different if I'd said it to someone else...  the way it read *to me* you find it peculiar how she expresses herself without giving any genuine thought as to why that might be. For example, you don't seem to wonder whether English is her first language. I don't really find anything really strange about her talking about her old son, whereas what I get from you is you'd rather she said 'my dead son'. You would rather she had a wider vocabulary but she missed at least three years of education. I wonder how you'd express yourself in similar circumstances, quite possibly with only a few words just as she has. And that's before considering trauma etc. But yeh I'm a prick. I must say I'm surprised by the er limitations of your insults.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> It was a response to another post. Try reading again.


Yes, the post you responded to talked of their victims, ie daesh's victims. You talked of her victims, ie begum's victims. Who are her victims?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Saying that to you?  Of course it would be different if I'd said it to someone else...  the way it read *to me* you find it peculiar how she expresses herself without giving any genuine thought as to why that might be. For example, you don't seem to wonder whether English is her first language. I don't really find anything really strange about her talking about her old son, whereas what I get from you is you'd rather she said 'my dead son'. You would rather she had a wider vocabulary but she missed at least three years of education. I wonder how you'd express yourself in similar circumstances, quite possibly with only a few words just as she has. And that's before considering trauma etc. But yeh I'm a prick. I must say I'm surprised by the er limitations of your insults.



I usually try to read people's posts in the context of what I know of them. I hope that most people do the same for me. The idea that I wouldn't have given any genuine thought to how she may be how she is is absurd. But knock yourself out.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> She expresses herself in a very odd way, not just flat, but saying things like my 'old' son talking about her son who died and 'it was a shock' seems the extent of her emotional vocabulary. I must admit to being surprised by these...limitations.


End of the day she was a child who got groomed online by an organisation who’s MO is to select vulnerable young people, who are isolated in their faith, isolate them further, coach them through leaving their families, and impress on them that the only righteous way is their way. Then she has lived through a war, lost two children, and ended up in a refugee camp pregnant. Plus she’s been living in a society where any expression of reflection or regret is profoundly seen as against God.

Stick her in front of the cameras of the West and she appears like the odd, dislocated kid that she is. De-radicalisation will take months or years. Not believing something after you’ve known it to be true- that takes time and exposure to another reality.

We should take her back because she is a UK citizen and our responsibility, but also out of mercy. I think that’s my view now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I usually try to read people's posts in the context of what I know of them. I hope that most people do the same for me. The idea that I wouldn't have given any genuine thought to how she may be how she is is absurd. But knock yourself out.


If you actually read my post then you would have seen that much of what I say relates not to how she is but who she is and I have not the impression from reading your posts that you have thought about that. Indeed your response quoted demonstrates you haven't.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Regardless of what she's done she's just lost her friends, two children, been bombed out of her home and put in a refugee camp. It would be weird if she didn't have some sort of ptsd surely?


That could well be the reason.


----------



## Supine (Feb 21, 2019)

Similar case in the US

US says it won't take back Alabama woman who joined 'Islamic State' | DW | 20.02.2019


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Supine said:


> Similar case in the US
> 
> US says it won't take back Alabama woman who joined 'Islamic State' | DW | 20.02.2019



Interesting case, it was mentioned here some pages back.  It seems she was way more active on social media in recruiting and celebrating IS atrocities but she is now making a much bigger effort with the remorse thing that the Begum.

Given the US approach to sentencing I'm a bit surprised they've taken this tack and not just thrown her in jail forever.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Supine said:


> Similar case in the US
> 
> US says it won't take back Alabama woman who joined 'Islamic State' | DW | 20.02.2019


strange in the light of trump's admonition to britain, among others, to take daesh people in


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> End of the day she was a child who got groomed online by an organisation who’s MO is to select vulnerable young people, who are isolated in their faith, isolate them further, coach them through leaving their families, and impress on them that the only righteous way is their way. Then she has lived through a war, lost two children, and ended up in a refugee camp pregnant. Plus she’s been living in a society where any expression of reflection or regret is profoundly seen as against God.
> 
> Stick her in front of the cameras of the West and she appears like the odd, dislocated kid that she is. De-radicalisation will take months or years. Not believing something after you’ve known it to be true- that takes time and exposure to another reality.
> 
> We should take her back because she is a UK citizen and our responsibility, but also out of mercy. I think that’s my view now.



Presumably, we only have her word for it that she's lost two kids? 

I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence regarding the efficacy of deradicalisation programmes, particularly in respect of those who've shown no remorse.

We should also bear in mind that we don't know what threat she poses, as were not necessarily party to all of the information on which the Home Secretary based his decision.

Still finding it hard to care too much about her, albeit I care about the possibility that what's being used to exclude her might be a racist law applied in a racist way.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence regarding the efficacy of deradicalisation programmes, particularly in respect of those who've shown no remorse.


'A duty to hate Britain': the anger of tube bomber Ahmed Hassan


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

'A duty to hate Britain': the anger of tube bomber Ahmed Hassan


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> She expresses herself in a very odd way, not just flat, but saying things like my 'old' son talking about her son who died and 'it was a shock' seems the extent of her emotional vocabulary. I must admit to being surprised by these...limitations.


She certainly comes across as thick, and maybe nervous sometimes, neither of which are surprising given the life she pursued with gusto, where she's been for the last 4 years and what she's experienced. A lot of what she's said most recently are clearly not her own words and are completely the opposite of what she was saying when she was first interviewed so she has very obviously been given some instruction in what to say in media interviews. Therefore, the emotional vocabulary that you mention most likely isn't hers anyway. Could it be that she just hasn't learnt her lines properly?


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Quite apart from the instances of demonstrable failure of deradicalisation. The idea that she could be monitored sufficiently well to remove all risk is fanciful.  For instance, anyone could visit the house with a pay-as-go smartphone registered in any name, and, 'hey presto', she had unmonitored access to communications and the internet.  Who knows what contacts she's made and training she's received in Syria. And what she'd be willing to do now.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> Presumably, we only have her word for it that she's lost two kids?
> 
> I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence regarding the efficacy of deradicalisation programmes, particularly in respect of those who've shown no remorse.
> 
> ...


Even if she doesn’t ever change her mind (be “deradicalised”) she remains the responsibility of the uk.

And even if she hasn’t lost two infants, she deserves mercy. She is demonstrably unable to think through or around what she believes, and lacks any wider perspective whatsoever. She doesn’t lack remorse so much as completely lack the _ability_ to see how others might perceive what she’s saying. That’s the profound effect of living within a cult for half a decade at a formative age.

The degree to which she is culpable and responsible for her actions is complex here. The context of her decisions- that she was a young person exposed to a radicalising cult experienced in psychological manipulation- shouldn’t be ignored. As a minimum let’s get her back here and try her. I’m surprised you disagree and just want her left wandering other countries who have more than their share of trouble.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 21, 2019)

Outrage in Syria, Iraq as ISIS members treated as celebrities in west


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

Going to work now and on my phone, so will be brief. If I were doing a state of mind exam I would note the limit of her emotional range and expression, that her capacity to think and feel seems very compromised. That's my observation. I would wonder about the effect of trauma but would also consider underlying pre-existing vulnerabilities that may effect her emotional and intellectual capacity.

I hope that's clearer.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> . As a minimum let’s get her back here and try her.



No, its not down to 'us' to get her back here.  She shouldn't be getting preferential treatment over what any other citizen like you or I would get.  Usual consular services should be provided where possible.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Outrage in Syria, Iraq as ISIS members treated as celebrities in west



I posted upthread about the disgusting way in which the UK press are dealing with this.  Vox popping her on every twist and turn of the case, frankly I'm sick of looking at every news site and seeing her face.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> No, its not down to 'us' to get her back here.  She shouldn't be getting preferential treatment over what any other citizen like you or I would get.  Usual consular services should be provided where possible.


remembering the consular 'assistance' afforded to people who were nicked by the police in prague in 2000 (s26) or indeed in genoa in 2001 such 'assistance' might be better termed inaction.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> No, its not down to 'us' to get her back here.  She shouldn't be getting preferential treatment over what any other citizen like you or I would get.  Usual consular services should be provided where possible.


All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> Going to work now and on my phone, so will be brief. If I were doing a state of mind exam I would note the limit of her emotional range and expression, that her capacity to think and feel seems very compromised. That's my observation. I would wonder about the effect of trauma but would also consider underlying pre-existing vulnerabilities that may effect her emotional and intellectual capacity.
> 
> I hope that's clearer.



What does that say about the risk she might pose if she returns?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.


which might of course put the hacks at risk - prominent daesh people can't be popular throughout syria and i'd imagine there'd be a number of people who'd merrily see her dead.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> remembering the consular 'assistance' afforded to people who were nicked by the police in prague in 2000 (s26) or indeed in genoa in 2001 such 'assistance' might be better termed inaction.



Well quite, the same consular service that anyone else would get.  Get yourself nicked in a foreign country and you're essentially on your own.  Got no money to get home?  Well, tough (though they may lend you a bit if you're lucky).  These are the risks we all knowingly take when we leave the country.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.



Special treatment for the celeb then?

If you lose a passport abroad (and I've been with people 3 times when this has happened) you get no special treatment and you have to join the line in consul like everyone else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Well quite, the same consular service that anyone else would get.  Get yourself nicked in a foreign country and you're essentially on your own.  Got no money to get home?  Well, tough (though they may lend you a bit if you're lucky).  These are the risks we all knowingly take when we leave the country.


all the other countries whose nationals got nicked actually did provide assistance to get their people out of the prague hellhole but the uk were singularly distinguished by their lack of action.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Special treatment for the celeb then?


Is that really the sum total of your ability to think through this situation?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> Is that really the sum total of your ability to think through this situation?



Clearly not if you've actually read the thread.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> What does that say about the risk she might pose if she returns?


What risk? She poses little risk. She’ll be in prison for years, after which she’ll be under surveillance for years. I’m more worried about the unidentifed terrorist whose still going about their normal business.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> Even if she doesn’t ever change her mind (be “deradicalised”) she remains the responsibility of the uk.
> 
> And even if she hasn’t lost two infants, she deserves mercy. She is demonstrably unable to think through or around what she believes, and lacks any wider perspective whatsoever. She doesn’t lack remorse so much as completely lack the _ability_ to see how others might perceive what she’s saying. That’s the profound effect of living within a cult for half a decade at a formative age.
> 
> The degree to which she is culpable and responsible for her actions is complex here. The context of her decisions- that she was a young person exposed to a radicalising cult experienced in psychological manipulation- shouldn’t be ignored. As a minimum let’s get her back here and try her. I’m surprised you disagree and just want her left wandering other countries who have more than their share of trouble.



I think the risk she poses outweighs any mercy she's due (which is informed by her past conduct, albeit I accept that there are factors that mitigate culpability).

I'd rather she wasn't here, and have little sympathy that her desire to come to the UK had been thwarted.

But, I would challenge the mechanism by which the UK seeks to achieve that.  Whilst it might be lawful, it's deeply concerning.

I guess an analogy is if, say, the murderers of Stephen Lawrence were flung out on the Home Secretary's whim following a change in the law that allowed him to do so, I'd have no sympathy for them and think we're better off without them, but would be worried about the arbitrary use of power.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Clearly not if you've actually read the thread.


Then why say something that inane.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> What risk? She poses little risk. She’ll be in prison for years, after which she’ll be under surveillance for years. I’m more worried about the unidentifed terrorist whose still going about their normal business.



In one breath you are saying she is a traumatized child who has been indoctrinated into a cult and in the second you blithely say she possess little risk?  Of course she poses a massive risk, as big a risk as any young male IS fighter who is returning from the front line.

Given she initially committed her 'crime' (if any crime has been committed) as a child Jail is not a given and these decentralization programs are questionable at best.

These are not reasons she shouldn't be allowed back - she should be, but its bizarre to claim she poses little risk.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> Then why say something that inane.



It was simplistic response to your simplistic reasoning.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> What risk? She poses little risk. She’ll be in prison for years, after which she’ll be under surveillance for years. I’m more worried about the unidentifed terrorist whose still going about their normal business.



You have no idea what risk she poses.  What she would like to do (she thought the Manchester bombings were justified), what she's capable of doing (she was intelligent and resourceful enough to get to Syria as a child, despite being on the state's radar), what training, contacts or resources she gained in Syria - we only have her word for it het activities were confined to those of a housewife;  she might be an expert bombmaker.

Admittedly, nor do I know the risk, but I'm less willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. 

The maximum for that offence is ten years. That'd be for the committed adult male fighters who tried to recruit others.  She'd say she was a child, was brainwashed, never fought, never recruited. There'd be psych reports saying she has PTSD etc., and reports about the impact of prison on her child.  She'd probably get 4-6 years, of which she'd have to serve half, some of which would be out on a tag - she could do not much more than 18 months. 

Effective surveillance of someone who knows they're being watched is near impossible, and would be relatively easy to avoid.   The example I have above of an unregistered mobile. Or, if, say, she leaves home with a suitcase and goes to the tube, then what?  She gonna be stopped every time, just because someone is watching her house. What if she drives out of her garage with a bit full of explosives?  Pull her over every time she uses a car?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

FWIW Edie I do agree with the general thrusts of your argument regarding compassion and her being allowed back to the UK which should be her right.  It just bothers me that given everything she has done, the appalling atrocities she has helped to enable and her obvious attitude now it really bothers me that she should be given special treatment that you, me or anyone else would get.

She thinks its fine to bomb pop concerts full of kids but not fine that her and her child aren't flown home and allowed to just get on with their lives.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> In one breath you are saying she is a traumatized child who has been indoctrinated into a cult and in the second you blithely say she possess little risk?  Of course she poses a massive risk, as big a risk as any young male IS fighter who is returning from the front line.
> 
> Given she initially committed her 'crime' (if any crime has been committed) as a child Jail is not a given and these decentralization programs are questionable at best.
> 
> These are not reasons she shouldn't be allowed back - she should be, but its bizarre to claim she poses little risk.


yeh atm the risk she poses is unknown.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> You have no idea what risk she poses.  What she would like to do (she thought the Manchester bombings were justified), what she's capable of doing (she was intelligent and resourceful enough to get to Syria as a child, despite being on the state's radar), what training, contacts or resources she gained in Syria - we only have her word for it het activities were confined to those of a housewife;  she might be an expert bombmaker.
> 
> Admittedly, nor do I know the risk, but I'm less willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> ...


Fair enough there.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> She poses little risk.


How do you know this? For 4 years she has been an enthusiastic supporter of a regime whose followers have demanded that their people return to their countries to continue the jihad by cutting throats and running people down with vehicles. Exactly what has happened in the most recent attacks in Europe, perpetrated by people who afaia, didn't even go to Syria. At the very least she poses an ideological threat.


> She’ll be in prison for years ...


Again, how do you know this? This thread has amply demonstrated that there's no shortage of people who would rather support her than see her punished. As the law, stands, it probably would only see her prosecuted for joining a proscibed organisation which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. IF, and it's an enormous IF, she were sentenced to the maximum, she'd do 5 years. More likely she'd do a bit of time and be directed to one of these _deradicalisation programs_ which don't seem to work in all cases.


> ... after which she’ll be under surveillance for years.


A use of expensive resources that surely would be better employed elsewhere.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.



Pretty much this.

The people running the camp will not let her leave until she has travel documents to do so. She's being held by the Kurds, whom the Turks have vowed to attack and destroy. At which point an ISIS dregs left rotting in the camp will be free to do do what they like, sneak in and blow up teenage concerts, for example...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> The people running the camp will not let her leave until she has travel documents to do so. She's being held by the Kurds, whom the Turks have vowed to attack and destroy. At which point an ISIS dregs left rotting in the camp will be free to do do what they like, sneak in and blow up teenage concerts, for example...


even if she had travel documents, a passport or whatnot, i expect any international journalists visiting refugee camps have to pass through a range of checkpoints on the way there: and indeed on the way back. while their local guides / fixers may be able to get a vanload of journalists through these places, i suspect that going through them with an increasingly famous daesh woman would not be quite so simple. taking her along could easily compromise the lot and lead to a brief but full and final exchange of views by the roadside.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> even if she had travel documents, a passport or whatnot, i expect any international journalists visiting refugee camps have to pass through a range of checkpoints on the way there: and indeed on the way back. while their local guides / fixers may be able to get a vanload of journalists through these places, i suspect that going through them with an increasingly famous daesh woman would not be quite so simple. taking her along could easily compromise the lot and lead to a brief but full and final exchange of views by the roadside.



The people running the camp have said that with an emergency passport they can hand her over to the Turks who will stick her on a flight to the UK, so long as the UK acknowledges that she's coming. The UK would only need to send a consular courier to the Turkish border to hand those docs over. The caliphate is finished, it seems that they just want shot of these scumbags and that it is our responsibility to deal with them. The fact that we don't want to I guess is that our laws are not in place/robust enough to get a meaningful conviction from someone like her, there's no evidence she has done anything particularly serious, (passport fraud is hardly crime of the century, joining ISIS was not a crime when she left the UK). Would appear the US is having the same problems, even though that Alabama woman is on record as encouraging others to join and to celebrate US deaths, alongside the US having a much more 'flexible justice system', seemingly allowing it to bang up whomever it wishes for as long as it likes.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> FWIW Edie I do agree with the general thrusts of your argument regarding compassion and her being allowed back to the UK which should be her right.  It just bothers me that given everything she has done, the appalling atrocities she has helped to enable and her obvious attitude now it really bothers me that she should be given special treatment that you, me or anyone else would get.
> 
> She thinks its fine to bomb pop concerts full of kids but not fine that her and her child aren't flown home and allowed to just get on with their lives.


I get that. But I feel this is more complex than just entitlement.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> How do you know this? For 4 years she has been an enthusiastic supporter of a regime whose followers have demanded that their people return to their countries to continue the jihad by cutting throats and running people down with vehicles. Exactly what has happened in the most recent attacks in Europe, perpetrated by people who afaia, didn't even go to Syria. At the very least she poses an ideological threat.
> 
> Again, how do you know this? This thread has amply demonstrated that there's no shortage of people who would rather support her than see her punished. As the law, stands, it probably would only see her prosecuted for joining a proscibed organisation which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. IF, and it's an enormous IF, she were sentenced to the maximum, she'd do 5 years. More likely she'd do a bit of time and be directed to one of these _deradicalisation programs_ which don't seem to work in all cases.
> 
> A use of expensive resources that surely would be better employed elsewhere.


So what, rather than subject her to the rule of law we allow the Home Secretary to do whatever he sees fit? That cannot be right.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> strange in the light of trump's admonition to britain, among others, to take daesh people in



America First


----------



## xenon (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> All due respect this isn’t exactly a normal situation. This isn’t someone losing a passport in Spain and pleading special circumstances. It’s significant enough for several crews of international journalists to travel to her. Just bring her back with them.


They'd have to take her to a country with British consular services to get emergency travel docs. Not just rock up at an airport in Turkey. Also goes against general journalistic integraty and impartiality. (Yeah, yeah I know.)

If anyone's being brought out of there, bring someone else back who's not chosen to join Daesh instead. 


My opinion hasn't changed. If she makes it to a country with consular representation, by all means let her return to the UK to face investigation and due process. Removing her British citizenship was a synical grandstanding move by the home secretary.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> America First


the cradle of the best and of the worst


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2019)

Anyone else reckon that Rudd was quite happy for HO civil servants to allow Javid to go ahead with the Bangladesh/joint-nationality grand-standing nonsense, only to end up looking like a self-serving tit when the whole thing inevitably fell at the first?


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

xenon the whole ‘bring someone back whose not Daesh’ is a meaningless argument. Complete false dichotomy.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Anyone else reckon that Rudd was quite happy for HO civil servants to allow Javid to go ahead with the Bangladesh/joint-nationality grand-standing nonsense, only to end up looking like a self-serving tit when the whole thing inevitably fell at the first?


bet rudd said 'go ahead, it'll be fine' while laughing behind her hand


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> bet rudd said 'go ahead, it'll be fine' while laughing behind her hand


Yep, and his shaky performance at the dispatch box will have kept the giggles going.


----------



## xenon (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> xenon the whole ‘bring someone back whose not Daesh’ is a meaningless argument. Complete false dichotomy.



No. Not whilst you're talking about sympathy and empathy it isn't. It's an emotional response to your expression of feeling some sympathy towards her.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> So what, rather than subject her to the rule of law we allow the Home Secretary to do whatever he sees fit?



Given that Bangladesh have, in no uncertain terms, said they won't accept her, Javid's decision, it will be argued, has probably _de facto_ made her stateless. The legal process is likely to roll on for years during which she may well die or be killed in the camp. If that doesn't happen, give her to Iraq or Syria, whose people were most affected by her choices and crimes. France, I believe, is allowing it's fighters to be tried overseas.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 21, 2019)

xenon said:


> My opinion hasn't changed. If she makes it to a country with consular representation, by all means let her return to the UK to face investigation and due process.



She is on the Turkish border, but can not cross without the docs. The Kurds running the camp have asked the UK to provide the docs at the border so they can be rid of her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Given that Bangladesh have, in no uncertain terms, said they won't accept her, Javid's decision, it will be argued, has probably _de facto_, made her stateless. The legal process is likely to roll on for years during which she may well die or be killed in the camp. If that doesn't happen, give her to Iraq or Syria, whose people were most affected by her choices and crimes.


if reports of widespread unease in northern iraq are true, and daesh do make a comeback there, then i suppose another option for disposing of her will be open


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Were enthusiastically pro nazi wives punished after World War Two? (apart from when the allies turned up and raped them all that is)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 21, 2019)

Javid has fucked himself, trying to palm her off without checking properly if he can. We'll now have to take her back and he will have to accept that she will receive a short period of questioning and be released, making him look a useless, toothless braggart.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Javid has fucked himself, trying to palm her off without checking properly if he can. We'll now have to take her back and he will have to accept that she will receive a short period of questioning and be released, making him look a useless, toothless braggart.


an orally flatulent windbag


----------



## xenon (Feb 21, 2019)

OH god not the errant Nazi comparison again.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 21, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Javid has fucked himself, trying to palm her off without checking properly if he can. We'll now have to take her back and he will have to accept that she will receive a short period of questioning and be released, making him look a useless, toothless braggart.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

xenon said:


> No. Not whilst you're talking about sympathy and empathy it isn't. It's an emotional response to your expression of feeling some sympathy towards her.


It’s a bit of a daft emotional response in my view, because it completely ignores any context, but crack on.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Were enthusiastically pro nazi wives punished after World War Two?


Was there solid evidence that enthusiatically pro nazi wives went out of their way to materially support the crimes perpetrated by the regime?

If so, then they should have been.


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Aye, lets not forget journalists are racking up thousands of pounds travelling to a refugee camp and interviewing her purely for clickbait and rage shares.
> 
> They don't even have the decency to run reports of conditions in the camps or interview anyone else while they're there.


true, the initial scoop interview has moved all the focus into celeb territory.  The media has regular access and while I haven't read/seen every report one thing that is striking is that sfaik she hasn't alleged ill-treatment or particular hardship in the camp.  That's to the credit of her captors.  

I have some doubts the people she's incarcerated with would have been so merciful/civilised. I also doubt they'd all be particularly sympathetic if she renounced them and what they stood for- her interviews have to be seen in the context that she shares space with murderers and rapists and she thus cannot be seen to step out of line. More than that, they're members of a group who were often credited with extremely sophisticated use of propaganda across the news and social media. While she is in that camp nothing she says can really be taken at face value, she may be a willing part of an outreach programme, she may be being coerced in what she says. 

Whichever way there are a lot like her and her husband. Their crimes were predominantly against Syrian and Iraqi people so they should have first choice on what happens. Rather than each individual nation trying to work out what do with their nationals, leaving the likes of Bangladesh to pick up the pieces, perhaps there is scope for some internationally brokered agreement on how to proceed?  One possibility is that the Rest of the World provides the funds for Kurdish or Syrian groups to take all the children into care (or repatriate them) and to build a proper prison and keep these people (after due process and conviction) in it for some decades.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 21, 2019)

I just sent this to the Home Secretary:



> Dear Sir,
> 
> 
> I am writing in regard to the order given for the revocation of UK Citizenship of Shamima Begum.
> ...


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 21, 2019)

btw I don't believe the British government or nation or anything has or ever had any of those values and I don't think this will make any change to that but this has been on my mind this week and I needed to say it.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Were enthusiastically pro nazi wives punished after World War Two? (apart from when the allies turned up and raped them all that is)


Not entirely sure that there was a similar colonisation tbh , occupations yes. However nazi sympathisers, women who married or slept with occupying forces were routinely assaulted,  tarred and feathered in France , hung in other countries , thrown out of their housesand  refused employment by the citizens of occupied countries.


----------



## xenon (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> It’s a bit of a daft emotional response in my view, because it completely ignores any context, but crack on.



Where as journoes bringing her back because she seems a bit dim and confused to you from thousands of miles away is sensible. OK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Not entirely sure that there was a similar colonisation tbh , occupations yes. However nazi sympathisers, women who married or slept with occupying forces were routinely assaulted,  tarred and feathered in France , hung in other countries , thrown out of their housesand  refused employment by the citizens of occupied countries.


nothing happened to lady mosley after the war


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

She does really come across as dim, really dim.  Dim and colder than a deliveroo meal.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> nothing happened to lady mosley after the war


Unfortunately; but I'm not sure what laws she broke, tbf.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Was there solid evidence that enthusiatically pro nazi wives went out of their way to materially support the crimes perpetrated by the regime?
> 
> If so, then they should have been.



How would you be able to tell how enthusiastic they were?


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> So what, rather than subject her to the rule of law we allow the Home Secretary to do whatever he sees fit? That cannot be right.



Strictly speaking, he's following the rule of law (specifically s.40 British Nationality Act 1948). I think the question is whether it's a good law and/or whether the discretion it provides is used in a discriminatory fashion.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Unfortunately; but I'm not sure what laws she broke, tbf.


apparently the mosleys had to get married again after the war as for some reason one adolf hitler, of berlin, germany, had retained their marriage certificate

while not an offence under the laws of the land certainly rather peculiar.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Given that Bangladesh have, in no uncertain terms, said they won't accept her, Javid's decision, it will be argued, has probably _de facto_ made her stateless.



Of course, he will argue that it's Bangladesh's subsequent (unlawful) decision that has made her stateless.


----------



## tim (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Were enthusiastically pro nazi wives punished after World War Two? (apart from when the allies turned up and raped them all that is)


No, but they were Aryan


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This thread has amply demonstrated that there's no shortage of people who would rather support her than see her punished. As the law, stands, it probably would only see her prosecuted for joining a proscibed organisation which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. IF, and it's an enormous IF, she were sentenced to the maximum, she'd do 5 years. More likely she'd do a bit of time and be directed to one of these _deradicalisation programs_ which don't seem to work in all cases.


Not so sure about your first bit. There seems to be pretty wide consensus on this thread that she should be allowed back here, that she should be regarded as 'our problem', and that she should be prosecuted and spend time in jail. If that does indeed happen to her in due course, she has had a result out of this, she has got off lightly and has the possibility of building some kind of a new life. And given that she has become the poster-girl of this process, we can widen that out and say that the same goes for all the others in her situation now. (I agree with those expressing distaste for the way Begum has been fixated on by the media.)

Regarding what happens after she leaves jail in that scenario, we can't really prejudge it. There are no certainties or guarantees, but that's true of lots of people released from jail after doing awful things. While we should be mindful of the potential threat she may present, we also shouldn't exaggerate it. What she has done is fucking evil, but at the same time, in many ways, she is a stupid child.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> How would you be able to tell how enthusiastic they were?


I would suggest the basis of evidence as a good start. Did they travel 2000 miles to get involved? Did they keep slaves? Did they express no remorse for the rapes and genocide? Did they subsequently say that the murders of the beleaguered populations were "ok"? etc, etc ...

Stuff like that.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

tim said:


> No, but they were Aryan


Aaaaaand we're off again ...


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> Of course, he will argue that it's Bangladesh's subsequent (unlawful) decision that has made her stateless.


Yep, which is what's going to keep this in the courts for years.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I would suggest the basis of evidence as a good start. Did they travel 2000 miles to get involved? Did they keep slaves? Did they express no remorse for the rapes and genocide? Did they subsequently say that the murders of the beleaguered populations were "ok"? etc, etc ...
> 
> Stuff like that.



Well you know they weren't travelling to join the Nazi's, they were in occupied territories. So are you saying actually none of them meet the criteria for punishment you're setting out?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 21, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She is on the Turkish border, but can not cross without the docs. The Kurds running the camp have asked the UK to provide the docs at the border so they can be rid of her.



Unless she's moved, she's about 50 miles from the Turkish border, and about 5 miles from the Iraqi border.

The very solid impression I got from the various Kurdish statements was that they certainly want rid of her, but that she won't be released unless into to the physical hands of the UK authorities - she won't be bundled into a Hilux with some hacks from Sky news and a promise of travel documents on the Turkish border.

That means sending British soldiers - and there's a newborn to consider, so a 50 mile trip in the back of a pick-up, through checkpoints manned by a hotch-potch of groups differing attitudes, to a border that gets closed at random and for random periods of time, all along roads infested with IED's.

It's a 200+ mile drive to Erbil in Iraq which is where western support to the Kurds comes in by air - with a newborn - and the roads aren't like the M4, and it's 200 miles through militia central.

She could be picked up by helicopter - that's two Chinooks at £40 million apiece that you helped pay for - each with a crew of five, some of whom will have kids, an SF team of 8 and two pick-ups, and another 20 blokes to provide security on the ground for the helicopters while the SF team go into the camp to get her.

That's a lot of people, and a lot of resources, to risk...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 21, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Unless she's moved, she's about 50 miles from the Turkish border, and about 5 miles from the Iraqi border.
> 
> The very solid impression I got from the various Kurdish statements was that they certainly want rid of her, but that she won't be released unless into to the physical hands of the UK authorities - she won't be bundled into a Hilux with some hacks from Sky news and a promise of travel documents on the Turkish border.
> 
> ...



Dem Kurds said they would deliver her to the border, that they've been taking a lot of them there and handing them over. So why so hard in this case?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Well you know they weren't travelling to join the Nazi's, they were in occupied territories. So are you saying actually none of them meet the criteria for punishment you're setting out?


No. I'm saying that if they did they should have been held accountable. The comparison with the nazi regime doesn't stack up anyway, not least in terms of scale. After the war there were likely millions of Germans and their collaborators who probably should have been brought to justice and weren't. That's unfortunate. Here though, we're talking about a few hundred people.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Well you know they weren't travelling to join the Nazi's, they were in occupied territories. So are you saying actually none of them meet the criteria for punishment you're setting out?


I actually meant the women of Germany. I know what happened to women who married or slept with nazis in occupied countries.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2019)

The Nazi comparison doesn't work. Like the comparison with those released in Northern Ireland, there are other considerations to take into account. Those violent men in NI weren't released because it was decided that what they did was ok. They were released so that there could be peace in NI, and their victims had to suck up a fuck of a lot in the process, for a wider good. That doesn't apply here. In the case of the Nazis, a lot of people who did nasty things did get away with it. But again, I don't see what relevance that has here. Here, they won't get away with it, which is a good thing.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> I actually meant the women of Germany. I know what happened to women who married or slept with nazis in occupied countries.



I've big issues with this law and what Javid is doing (albeit I've no sympathy for Begum, or desire for her to return).  But this comparison is utterly facile.


----------



## tim (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The Nazi comparison doesn't work. Like the comparison with those released in Northern Ireland, there are other considerations to take into account. Those violent men in NI weren't released because it was decided that what they did was ok. They were released so that there could be peace in NI, and their victims had to suck up a fuck of a lot in the process, for a wider good. That doesn't apply here. In the case of the Nazis, a lot of people who did nasty things did get away with it. But again, I don't see what relevance that has here. Here, they won't get away with it, which is a good thing.



Those with influence stand less chance of being punished


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The Nazi comparison doesn't work. Like the comparison with those released in Northern Ireland, there are other considerations to take into account. Those violent men in NI weren't released because it was decided that what they did was ok. They were released so that there could be peace in NI, and their victims had to suck up a fuck of a lot in the process, for a wider good. That doesn't apply here. In the case of the Nazis, a lot of people who did nasty things did get away with it. But again, I don't see what relevance that has here. Here, they won't get away with it, which is a good thing.



But we still have tim punting the preposterous notion that the post war allies were somehow soft on the nazis because they were aryan. 

Fuck me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> But we still have tim punting the preposterous notion that the post war allies were somehow soft on the nazis because they were aryan.
> 
> Fuck me.


I think there is mileage in a Nazi comparison, though. It's not like you can't say that ISIS are as evil as the Nazis. They are. But the comparison surely comes with what Iraq is doing now - Begum would be sentenced to death in Iraq for what she's done. There, the question is 'how do you treat your defeated enemy when that enemy was trying to exterminate you?' At some point, you have to give up on revenge.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there is mileage in a Nazi comparison, though. It's not like you can't say that ISIS are as evil as the Nazis. They are. But the comparison surely comes with what Iraq is doing now - Begum would be sentenced to death in Iraq for what she's done. There, the question is 'how do you treat your defeated enemy when that enemy was trying to exterminate you?' At some point, you have to give up on revenge.



Like in the Oresteia, giving up on revenge is the basis for rule of law. That is the compromise made for justice.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> I've big issues with this law and what Javid is doing (albeit I've no sympathy for Begum, or desire for her to return).  But this comparison is utterly facile.


So ISIS are uniquely evil in human history?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think there is mileage in a Nazi comparison, though. It's not like you can't say that ISIS are as evil as the Nazis. They are. But the comparison surely comes with what Iraq is doing now - Begum would be sentenced to death in Iraq for what she's done. There, the question is 'how do you treat your defeated enemy when that enemy was trying to exterminate you?' At some point, you have to give up on revenge.


Where does that point come? At what point should the hunt for nazi war criminals have been abandoned? Should Mengele have been allowed to live out his life in South America?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 21, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Dem Kurds said they would deliver her to the border, that they've been taking a lot of them there and handing them over. So why so hard in this case?



The logistics of it are the same, regardless of who does it. And if you are concerned with her welfare - or just that of the child - you'd have to ask how willing she would be to get in a vehicle with a load of Kurdish militia. 

Personally I have no doubts that the Kurds would deliver her and the child to the border safely, but whether she would see it that way is another matter. If she kicks off, what then?

This, of course, is now irrelevant. She's not a British citizen, and she won't be until a) it goes to the supreme court, and b) the Home Office loses its appeal in the supreme court.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

kebabking said:


> The logistics of it are the same, regardless of who does it. And if you are concerned with her welfare - or just that of the child - you'd have to ask how willing she would be to get in a vehicle with a load of Kurdish militia.
> 
> Personally I have no doubts that the Kurds would deliver her and the child to the border safely, but whether she would see it that way is another matter. If she kicks off, what then?
> 
> This, of course, is now irrelevant. She's not a British citizen, and she won't be until a) it goes to the supreme court, and b) the Home Office loses its appeal in the supreme court.


might even go to europe


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> But we still have tim punting the preposterous notion that the post war allies were somehow soft on the nazis because they were aryan.
> 
> Fuck me.


To clarify my argument is pretty much what littlebabyjesus just said. Not pushing a race angle with that comparison.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> So ISIS are uniquely evil in human history?


Yes. That’s exactly what he’s suggesting.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> To clarify my argument is pretty much what littlebabyjesus just said. Not pushing a race angle with that comparison.


That’s why I didn’t tag you.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> So ISIS are uniquely evil in human history?



I didn't make any such claim, nor does that conclusion follow from anything I did say.

I understand you have issues with this (as do I), but this sort of ridiculous hyperbole doesn't really add any value to the discussion.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> I actually meant the women of Germany. I know what happened to women who married or slept with nazis in occupied countries.



Fair, missed that sorry. I was more trying to get a handle on how Spymaster viewed it I guess.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Where does that point come? At what point should the hunt for nazi war criminals have been abandoned? Should Mengele have been allowed to live out his life in South America?


Giving up on revenge doesn't have to mean giving up on seeking justice. Leave Mengele be? No, absolutely not. But prosecute John Demjanjuk, for instance? I didn't and still don't see how that prosecution served justice. 

This doesn't apply to IS because their very state is being destroyed, but where you defeat a state and that state is going to continue existing, at some point you have to make a decision about the level of culpability you are going to let slide. That would be my reading of what happened in Germany and Japan after WW2. But the direct experience of their atrocities is going to colour that decision - it's not an accident that the Soviet Union took a harsher view than the UK or the US, and revenge certainly seems to be a big factor in Iraq's approach at the moment. 

I don't have easy answers to any of this. The aftermath of a civil war is usually bloody, precisely because those defeated have no state of their own to fall back to.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> I didn't make any such claim, nor does that conclusion follow from anything I did say.
> 
> I understand you have issues with this (as do I), but this sort of ridiculous hyperbole doesn't really add any value to the discussion.


So what is ridiculously facile about the comparison?


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not so sure about your first bit. There seems to be pretty wide consensus on this thread that she should be allowed back here, that she should be regarded as 'our problem'


Although she may have committed serious crimes against British law she didn't commit them here, iyswim.  She's not 'our problem' until the victims of the crimes against humanity she stands accused of participating in, or providing support for, have decided, once and for all, that they've punished her enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Not entirely sure that there was a similar colonisation tbh , occupations yes. However nazi sympathisers, women who married or slept with occupying forces were routinely assaulted,  tarred and feathered in France , hung in other countries , thrown out of their housesand  refused employment by the citizens of occupied countries.


let's not forget the nazi wives of austria, or ostmark as the nazis called it


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The Nazi comparison doesn't work. Like the comparison with those released in Northern Ireland, there are other considerations to take into account. Those violent men in NI weren't released because it was decided that what they did was ok. They were released so that there could be peace in NI, and their victims had to suck up a fuck of a lot in the process, for a wider good. That doesn't apply here. In the case of the Nazis, a lot of people who did nasty things did get away with it. But again, I don't see what relevance that has here. Here, they won't get away with it, which is a good thing.



Might there not be mileage in treating members of Daesh (particularly non-combatants) with a degree of dispassion, following due legal processes etc, perhaps even some clemency in sentencing, for the sake of peace? 

Daesh used the combination of Western imperialism and the racism experienced by Muslim's living in the West to recruit to their cause, after all.

Maybe you could take the view that making an example of this person sends a message to other young people who think of running away to join Daesh, or other groups that will surely spring up in their place, that they'll never be allowed back, and that it might put would be Islamist brides off for example. 

But would it deter someone from carrying out a suicide bomb attack here? If you are a young Muslim in Britain who is attracted to all this stuff, and we know they exist, then does all this coverage/social media rage/stripping of citizenship make it less likely you decide to do something like that? 

I just thought it was interesting that you said "those violent men" were released for the sake of peace - not really picking you up in particular but musing I guess.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. I'm saying that if they did they should have been held accountable. The comparison with the nazi regime doesn't stack up anyway, not least in terms of scale. After the war there were likely millions of Germans and their collaborators who probably should have been brought to justice and weren't. That's unfortunate. Here though, we're talking about a few hundred people.



So because there are less of them, it's more important they're brought to justice? 

The thread has grown quickly and I'm not sure but please remind me - are you in favour of her being brought to justice?


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> are you in favour of her being brought to justice?



He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I'm kinda thinking Spy's view is she's already facing her punishment and justice has been served.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Giving up on revenge doesn't have to mean giving up on seeking justice. Leave Mengele be? No, absolutely not. But prosecute John Demjanjuk, for instance? I didn't and still don't see how that prosecution served justice.


If Demjanjuk was who Israel believed him to be at the time of the prosecution, then I see no difference between him and Mengele. 

I don't disagree with the rest of what you say there but it only tangentially relates to the topic.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I'm kinda thinking Spy's view is she's already facing her punishment and justice has been served.



That feels more like something I said about 40 pages ago.  I remember someone saying "let her rot" but it could have been anyone.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> That feels more like something I said about 40 pages ago.  I remember someone saying "let her rot" but it could have been anyone.


Yeah I could be wrong I only dip in and out of this shitfest but I was getting the idea that there were several camps including the one she's in.

Camp 1. She in it.
Camp 2. She deservers to be in it.
Camp 3. No one deserves to be in a camp especially her poor baby.
Camp 4. It's men's fault.
Camp 5. Let's not waste any more troops on this hegemony.
Camp 6. This is just like the Nazi's
Camp 7. This is nothing like the Nazi's.
Camp 8. Cheese option.

I'm just sitting on the fence waiting for the bun fight


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Yeah I could be wrong I only dip in and out of this shitfest but I was getting the idea that there were several camps including the one she's in.
> 
> Camp 1. She in it.
> Camp 2. She deservers to be in it.
> ...



I hope there's a cheese fight.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So because there are less of them, it's more important they're brought to justice?


I'm going to assume that you're not deliberately trying to misrepresent me, and answer in good faith.

No. Because there are fewer of them it is far _more possible_ to bring them to justice. It would have been impossible to satisfactorily prosecute millions of Germans and their associates in the immediate post war years, so as LBJ says, somewhere you have to draw a line regarding the level of culpability, decide who you are going to pursue and what you'll let slide. You need to do that here too to a lesser extent but Begum would come way above any such line that I would draw.


> The thread has grown quickly and I'm not sure but please remind me - are you in favour of her being brought to justice?



Define justice. I suspect we have different ideas of what it is, how it should be delivered, and by whom.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'm going to assume that you're not deliberately trying to misrepresent me and answer in good faith.
> 
> No. Because there are fewer of them it is far _more possible_ to bring them to justice. It would have been impossible to satisfactorily prosecute millions of Germans and their associates in the post war years, so as LBJ says, somewhere you have to draw a line regarding the level of culpability and who you are going to pursue. You need to do that here too to a lesser extent but Begum would come way above any such line that I would draw.
> 
> ...



We might well have a different idea of what justice is. I think it should include a fair and public trial, charges brought, evidence given, and an appropriate sanction. 

I think what form of sanction is appropriate should be focused on the risk of harm to others an individual represents and also on rehabilitation, to stop them being a risk in the future. I realise obviously this is a far cry from the reality of the justice system, but if we're talking about principles...

I wouldn't have a problem with her being tried in Syria/Iraq if that's what authorities there wanted to do, provided she was given a fair trial and wasn't likely to be treated in a way that allows her to become a symbol or martyr for Daesh. But I think given there's a kid in the mix who is either going to be taken in by Britain or the Netherlands, or gonna have a really, really shitty life, I think best is to bring her back here, get the kid into social services and try her for whatever crimes she has committed.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Danny Dyer's take by the way. Lord love Danny.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Danny Dyer's take by the way. Lord love Danny.



for those of us who can't listen at work, perhaps you could summarise


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I hope there's a cheese fight.


beans first then cheese


----------



## kebabking (Feb 21, 2019)

I'm perfectly happy for her to rot in Eastern Syria.

My definition of justice is that which is defined by her peers: had she remained in the UK, or legged it home at the first opportunity, then that would have been her peers in the UK, but as she's in Syria her peers are the dispossessed, the bereaved, and the victims of a civil war she was happy to profit by. If she finds their definition of justice a little harsh for her tastes, then that's unfortunate. For her...

No one wants her, and even if she is not subject to justice, whether formal or informal, she is likely to spend her life in the somewhat anarchic wastes of eastern Syria and western Iraq. Her future is bleak, but given what she did - as an adult - and what she obviously believes, then it should be.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I'm perfectly happy for her to rot in Eastern Syria.
> 
> My definition of justice is that which is defined by her peers: had she remained in the UK, or legged it home at the first opportunity, then that would have been her peers in the UK, but as she's in Syria her peers are the dispossessed, the bereaved, and the victims of a civil war she was happy to profit by. If she finds their definition of justice a little harsh for her tastes, then that's unfortunate. For her...
> 
> No one wants her, and even if she is not subject to justice, whether formal or informal, she is likely to spend her life in the somewhat anarchic wastes of eastern Syria and western Iraq. Her future is bleak, but given what she did - as an adult - and what she obviously believes, then it should be.


i'd have thought your definition of justice might have had something to do with the law


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Danny Dyer's take by the way. Lord love Danny.



Alan Madely going straight for the blame-the-interwebs thinking. Before that it was computer games, then before that video nasties. Before that, seditious pamphlets, 'trashy' novels. Whatever you can blame that saves thinking too hard I suppose.


----------



## mojo pixy (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> beans first then cheese



There should also to be berries, so we can chuck them.



Too warm for a coat so I'll just fuck off


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> for those of us who can't listen at work, perhaps you could summarise


He says, yes she should come back... maybe we can learn from it.


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have thought your definition of justice might have had something to do with the law


whose law?  Her and her cohort destroyed the rule of law in Syria, and the populations there are only now trying to pick up the pieces.  She is where she is because of where she put herself- prima facie justice is being delivered.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> We might well have a different idea of what justice is. I think it should include a fair and public trial, charges brought, evidence given, and an appropriate sanction.
> 
> I think what form of sanction is appropriate should be focused on the risk of harm to others an individual represents and also on rehabilitation, to stop them being a risk in the future. I realise obviously this is a far cry from the reality of the justice system, but if we're talking about principles...
> 
> I wouldn't have a problem with her being tried in Syria/Iraq if that's what authorities there wanted to do, provided she was given a fair trial and wasn't likely to be treated in a way that allows her to become a symbol or martyr for Daesh. But I think given there's a kid in the mix who is either going to be taken in by Britain or the Netherlands, or gonna have a really, really shitty life, I think best is to bring her back here, get the kid into social services and try her for whatever crimes she has committed.



I agree with bits of this but I really don't give a fuck if she's never rehabilitated as long as she spends the rest of her life in prison. That's not going to happen though but it's what I believe to be the _appropriate sanction_ for someone who is unrepentant about facilitating mass rape and genocide; doesn't seem to give a fuck about over 3000 Yazidis still missing, and thinks beheading people that you don't like is "ok".

Absent the possibility of a genuine life sentence I would consider justice to have been served if she was executed by Iraq or Syria.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> whose law?  Her and her cohort destroyed the rule of law in Syria, and the populations there are only now trying to pick up the pieces.  She is where she is because of where she put herself- prima facie justice is being delivered.


her and her cohort? three schoolgirls from london did all this? this may be your justice but it's a bit of an ask to say this is any other sort of justice: and by justice you seem to mean retribution.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have thought your definition of justice might have had something to do with the law



It does, in the UK. Her peers - the rest of us - have (broadly) decided, through the law, what justice looks like. In Eastern Syria or western Iraq however the 'community concensus' might look different and work in a different way...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> Although she may have committed serious crimes against British law she didn't commit them here, iyswim.  She's not 'our problem' until the victims of the crimes against humanity she stands accused of participating in, or providing support for, have decided, once and for all, that they've punished her enough.



Killing all your victims would seem to be a foolproof way of sidestepping this macabre interpretation of the concept of justice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It does, in the UK. Her peers - the rest of us - have (broadly) decided, through the law, what justice looks like. In Eastern Syria or western Iraq however the 'community concensus' might look different and work in a different way...


your justice seems to be sink or swim if you're abroad.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> He says, yes she should come back... maybe we can learn from it.



Yeah and he also blames her parents, not explicitly but still fairly obviously.  I also blame the parents.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I agree with bits of this but I really don't give a fuck if she's never rehabilitated as long as she spends the rest of her life in prison. That's not going to happen though but it's what I believe to be the _appropriate sanction_ for someone who is unrepentant about facilitating mass rape and genocide; doesn't seem to give a fuck about over 3000 Yazidis still missing, and thinks beheading people that you don't like is "ok".
> 
> Absent the possibility of a genuine life sentence I would consider justice to have been served if she was executed by Iraq or Syria.



Yeah... I think that falls more into the 'revenge' vision of justice. But fair enough, at least I know where you stand. 

What about the stripping of citizenship? Are you ambivalent on this or for/against?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> whose law?  Her and her cohort destroyed the rule of law in Syria, and the populations there are only now trying to pick up the pieces.  She is where she is because of where she put herself- *prima facie* justice is being delivered.



Evidently they've changed latin since I learned the meaning of that phrase.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> So what is ridiculously facile about the comparison?


The radically different geopolitical circumstances for one thing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It does, in the UK. Her peers - the rest of us - have (broadly) decided, through the law, what justice looks like. In Eastern Syria or western Iraq however the 'community concensus' might look different and work in a different way...



Er. What? Have we? What did we broadly decide? Did I miss a meeting again? Fucking Google calender.


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> her and her cohort? three schoolgirls from london did all this? this may be your justice but it's a bit of an ask to say this is any other sort of justice: and by justice you seem to mean retribution.


her cohort is the group she travelled to join, lived with as they got booted out of one town after another and now lives with in a prison camp. As you knew.
I didn't mean retribution but the local populations might well want that from foreigners who went there to murder, rape and enslave - would you criticise them if they did?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah and he also blames her parents, not explicitly but still fairly obviously.  I also blame the parents.



He talked about her environment and the people around her to be fair, which could include the school. And wasn't about blame so much as "how has this happened?".


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> your justice seems to be sink or swim if you're abroad.


It's certainly mine. If you deliberately fuck with another country's laws, be prepared to face that country's justice.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's certainly mine. If you deliberately fuck with another country's laws, be prepared to face that country's justice.



You don't have a problem with say, someone getting the death penalty for smuggling weed in Thailand then?


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Killing all your victims would seem to be a foolproof way of sidestepping this macabre interpretation of the concept of justice.


Are you saying British ideas of 'justice' should have precedence in the Kurdish controlled area of Syria she's in?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah... I think that falls more into the 'revenge' vision of justice. But fair enough, at least I know where you stand.
> 
> What about the stripping of citizenship? Are you ambivalent on this or for/against?


In cases like this I don't care. In others I may strongly disapprove.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> your justice seems to be sink or swim if you're abroad.



More a mix of 'when in Rome..' and my abhorance of cultural imperialism...


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> He talked about her environment and the people around her to be fair, which could include the school. And wasn't about blame so much as "how has this happened?".



Yeah because he is aware enough not to explicitly say it but he meant it, rightly so.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> Are you saying British ideas of 'justice' should have precedence in the Kurdish controlled area of Syria she's in?



Ah, you were quoting Syrian law then? Not just your own half-baked theories on the subject?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> In cases like this I don't care. In others I may strongly disapprove.



Ok, thanks, I'm done with questions. I think your views are quite confused though, for the record.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2019)

kebabking said:


> More a mix of 'when in Rome..' and my abhorance of cultural imperialism...



You abhor imperialism? Weren't you in the army?


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Ah, you were quoting Syrian law then? Not just your own half-baked theories on the subject?


there is no Syrian law outside Assad controlled areas, and inside those it appears to be pretty arbitrary.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah because he is aware enough not to explicitly say it but he meant it, rightly so.


tbh I would rank 'blame the parents' alongside 'blame the internet' as seeking a simple answer where one may not exist. They may share some of the blame, and they may not really. We don't know.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> there is no Syrian law outside Assad controlled areas, and inside those it appears to be pretty arbitrary.



So your conflation of mob justice with due process according to local standards was false then? OK that's all we needed, thanks for your help.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You don't have a problem with say, someone getting the death penalty for smuggling weed in Thailand then?


I'm against manifestly unjust laws but that's subjective isn't it? In the case of drug smuggling penalties in the far east I often have little sympathy for those who know what the penalites are but go ahead and do it anyway. There are often mitigating circumstances though (coercion, drugs planted, etc) that should be taken into account.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> The radically different geopolitical circumstances for one thing.


And what's so radically different about these geopolitical circumstances that means nothing at all that's been learned from previous conflicts that can be applied to this one? I really don't know because you haven't actually said anything in your last two posts to me other than 'you're wrong' .


----------



## grit (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd have thought your definition of justice might have had something to do with the law



They (justice and the law) are more and more unrelated to each other in UK and Irish courts it seems.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'm against manifestly unjust laws but that's subjective isn't it? In the case of drug smuggling penalties in the far east I often have little sympathy for those who know what the penalites are but go ahead and do it anyway. There are often mitigating circumstances though (coercion, drugs planted, etc) that should be taken into account.


So it would be fine if you did a few years over here for your profligate cocaine use?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> So it would be fine if you did a few years over here for your profligate cocaine use?



I think he's just like that tbh.


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> So your conflation of mob justice with due process according to local standards was false then? OK that's all we needed, thanks for your help.


what?  'mob justice'? where? 

what I did say was that her captors appear to have held her in a civilised fashion.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ok, thanks, I'm done with questions. I think your views are quite confused though, for the record.


Fair enough. I think they're extremely consistent but they're certainly different to yours.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 21, 2019)

newbie said:


> what?  'mob justice'? where?
> 
> what I did say was that her captors appear to have held her in a civilised fashion.



And that justice would be done when anyone with a grudge against this person had grown tired or bored of exacting punishment. You said that as well.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> So it would be fine if you did a few years over here for your profligate cocaine use?


I haven't used coke for many, many, years but had I been nicked for it back in the day I'd have accepted whatever had happened. Yes.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh I would rank 'blame the parents' alongside 'blame the internet' as seeking a simple answer where one may not exist. They may share some of the blame, and they may not really. We don't know.



Sure, we don't know but I'm comfortable with the accusation.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> nothing happened to lady mosley after the war


Nothing happened to the Mosleyites per se after the war apart from those who had fought for the British Free Corps.They werte all prosecuted , jailed or executed. All those interned under 18b were released after the war.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> And what's so radically different about these geopolitical circumstances that means nothing at all that's been learned from previous conflicts that can be applied to this one? I really don't know because you haven't actually said anything in your last two posts to me other than 'you're wrong' .



Again, I've not said "nothing at all that's been learned from previous conflicts that can be applied to this one".  Rather, my point is that the situations are so different as to make a comparison useless.  I don't believe you really don't see that, so don't intend to spend ages detailing the crucial differences.  Sorry.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I haven't used coke for many, many, years but had I been nicked for it back in the day I'd have accepted whatever had happened. Yes.



I can't get my head round that but it's a bit of a dead end anyway so I'll drop it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's certainly mine. If you deliberately fuck with another country's laws, be prepared to face that country's justice.


So you'd have cheered on auld franco when Stuart Christie was condemned to 20 years in Spain


----------



## newbie (Feb 21, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> And that justice would be done when anyone with a grudge against this person had grown tired or bored of exacting punishment. You said that as well.


not in those emotively loaded words I didn't.

I'm pointing out that British laws are secondary to whatever her captors may determine is 'justice'.  How they do that is a matter for them, so long as they conform with reasonable international norms, which they appear to be doing.  The ISIS captives are not (apparently) being subjected to mob justice or anything similar, you've made that up.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> Again, I've not said "nothing at all that's been learned from previous conflicts that can be applied to this one".  Rather, my point is that the situations are so different as to make a comparison useless.  I don't believe you really don't see that, so don't intend to spend ages detailing the crucial differences.  Sorry.


So it's useful but it's useless? You can't even agree with yourself over the course of a single paragraph here. Maybe you should just admit you're dropping it because it's you that's not really interested rather than trying to claim it's me.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 21, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Unless she's moved, she's about 50 miles from the Turkish border, and about 5 miles from the Iraqi border.
> 
> The very solid impression I got from the various Kurdish statements was that they certainly want rid of her, but that she won't be released unless into to the physical hands of the UK authorities - she won't be bundled into a Hilux with some hacks from Sky news and a promise of travel documents on the Turkish border.
> 
> ...


Whatever her ultimate fate turns out to be, we can safely assume she is going to be stuck there for many months or even years until it is practical for the Kurds to ship her out themselves.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> So it's useful but it's useless? You can't even agree with yourself over the course of a single paragraph here. Maybe you should just admit you're dropping it because it's you that's not really interested rather than trying to claim it's me.



Plenty was learned in WW2 that's useful in the conflict with Daesh e.g. desert warfare tactics. But, comparing German Nazi wives with British female Daesh volunteers (from two very different conflicts), some seventy years apart, in a world that's legally, socially and politically radically different is useless.

 But you're right,  I'm certainly not interested in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> I can't get my head round that but it's a bit of a dead end anyway so I'll drop it.


Well you did rather pull it out of your arse, tbf.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'm certainly not interested in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.


Nice. Did you come up with that yourself?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> So you'd have cheered on auld franco when Stuart Christie was condemned to 20 years in Spain


I'll give it a google later.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> What does that say about the risk she might pose if she returns?



I don't know, I would hope that would be the work of a multidisciplinary team, to assess over time and in depth. I do know that risk is hard to assess.

I was just commenting on what struck me as a very limited capacity to express feeling in particular and I wondered if that pre-existed her more recent experiences, it's something I'd have felt curious about if I was working with her. Flat effect can be part of ptsd but can be aspects of other illness or disorders too. Of course, we're not in any position to know very much at all based on a few tv interviews.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

The39thStep said:


> Nothing happened to the Mosleyites per se after the war apart from those who had fought for the British Free Corps.They werte all prosecuted , jailed or executed. All those interned under 18b were released after the war.


Except for those released during the war


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 21, 2019)

Amir Khan on Twitter: "They gunna let this isis bride #ShamimaBegum back in the UK, I think that’s ridiculous, You left to support terrorism, now live with it. After watching her video she doesn’t seem one bit upset and comes across so arrogant. UK isn’t your home, stop giving us all a bad name please"


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Nice. Did you come up with that yourself?


It's a bit of an oldie but goldie.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 21, 2019)

Danny Dyer and now Amir Khan.  I'm going to sit on the fence till I've heard what Ant & Dec have to say.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Red Cat said:


> I don't know, I would hope that would be the work of a multidisciplinary team, to assess over time and in depth. I do know that risk is hard to assess.
> 
> I was just commenting on what struck me as a very limited capacity to express feeling in particular and I wondered if that pre-existed her more recent experiences, it's something I'd have felt curious about if I was working with her. Flat effect can be part of ptsd but can be aspects of other illness or disorders too. Of course, we're not in any position to know very much at all based on a few tv interviews.



May I be the first to wish the Bangladeshi mental health services the very best of luck with that work.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> It's a bit of an oldie but goldie.


I know. I was accusing him of cliché but must remember sarcasm always goes undetected on this site.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> I know. I was accusing him of cliché but must remember sarcasm always goes undetected on this site.



Well done.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> Well done.


Thank you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Nice. Did you come up with that yourself?


sure I've said it to you myself


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> sure I've said it to you myself


Probably. You're a tedious wanker too.


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Danny Dyer and now Amir Khan.  I'm going to sit on the fence till I've heard what Ant & Dec have to say.


----------



## zahir (Feb 21, 2019)

Thread on the wider implications of withdrawal of citizenship.


----------



## isvicthere? (Feb 21, 2019)

The kneejerk, DM, racist, right-leaning response - "Go back where you came from!' - doesn't really work in this case.


----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Probably. You're a tedious wanker too.


Finally, something - Pickmans' tediousness - we can agree on.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 21, 2019)

I've used the term Jihaadi Bride but this article certainly gets you thinking about how using that media made term can deny some unpleasant realities about women as supporters of fascism and terrorism. 



> The vulnerable, confused and naïve jihadists
> Many ISIS militants were very young, an element that was usually emphasised in the
> news and that was used to moralise and dehumanise the terrorist group. Their usually
> young age may explain why the narrative depicting women terrorists as vulnerable,
> ...



*Making women terrorists into “Jihadi brides”: an analysis of media narratives on women joining ISIS*


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 21, 2019)

isvicthere? said:


> The kneejerk, DM, racist, right-leaning response - "Go back where you came from!' - doesn't really work in this case.



Surely in this case we can make an exception, and put Savid Javid on the next flight to Karachi?


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2019)

Anyone carrying on the personal abuse in this thread can expect a fresh warning in their inbox. Please keep to the topic. Thanks.


----------



## Edie (Feb 21, 2019)

Athos said:


> May I be the first to wish the Bangladeshi mental health services the very best of luck with that work.


Youre a cunt aren’t ya


----------



## pesh (Feb 21, 2019)




----------



## Athos (Feb 21, 2019)

Edie said:


> Youre a cunt aren’t ya



Yep. Minus the warmth.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Anyone carrying on the personal abuse in this thread can expect a fresh warning in their inbox. Please keep to the topic. Thanks.



Is it just swearing that's not allowed then because you personally described the first piece of abuse which was aimed at me as an 'oldie but a goldie'?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Is it just swearing that's not allowed then because you personally described the first piece of abuse which was aimed at me as an 'oldie but a goldie'?



That wasn't abuse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Is it just swearing that's not allowed then because you personally described the first piece of abuse which was aimed at me as an 'oldie but a goldie'?


Don't think saying you've come unarmed to a battle of wits is personal abuse, just a recognition of reality.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't think saying you've come unarmed to a battle of wits is personal abuse, just a recognition of reality.



You could say the same about tedious wanker to be fair. If we're getting into what counts as personal abuse. Which seems a bit pointless on Urban but there you go


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't think saying you've come unarmed to a battle of wits is personal abuse


Insulting someone as witless is not personal abuse? What strange parallel universe is this?


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2019)

Younge, one of the few good journalists at the graun:

Shamima Begum has a right to British citizenship, whether you like it or not | Gary Younge


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't think saying you've come unarmed to a battle of wits is personal abuse, just a recognition of reality.



There we go. That's the next piece of personal abuse on the thread. Warning for Pickman's model please editor


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> There we go. That's the next piece of personal abuse on the thread. Warning for Pickman's model please editor


Oh grow up.


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2019)

Next personal insult on this thread gets a warning.

The line has been drawn here. Cross it at your peril.

---------------------------


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Next personal insult on this thread gets a warning.
> 
> The line has been drawn here. Cross it at your peril.
> 
> ---------------------------


How about apologising for yours then seeing as you're laying down the law.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Personal abuse on Urban? 

Never!


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Next personal insult on this thread gets a warning.
> 
> The line has been drawn here. Cross it at your peril.
> 
> ---------------------------


You already said this but no warning has been given despite personal abuse from three posters.


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

Soap dodging sheepshagger. That's a fucking oldie but a goldie.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Personal abuse on Urban?
> 
> Never!


Eh! 

I just got a warning for this? 

Seriously???


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 21, 2019)

You’re all fucking privileged pearl-clutching cunts anyway. Fuck the lot of you


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

MadeInBedlam said:


> You’re all fucking privileged pearl-clutching cunts anyway. Fuck the lot of you


That's you fucked.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 21, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> That's you fucked.



Fuckkng have it


----------



## treelover (Feb 21, 2019)

Corbyn backs her return, that must be good for five points off the polls.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

treelover said:


> Corbyn backs her return, that must be good for five points off the polls.


Yeh we all know you despise corbyn


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

treelover said:


> Corbyn backs her return, that must be good for five points off the polls.


I'm just surprised it's taken Steptoe so long to pipe-up.


----------



## Ponyutd (Feb 21, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Danny Dyer and now Amir Khan.  I'm going to sit on the fence till I've heard what Ant & Dec have to say.


They'll be too busy 'blacking up'.


----------



## Theisticle (Feb 21, 2019)

It was clear that Begum spoke under duress... here’s why:


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2019)

I've really no idea why people would rather act like idiots and get themselves banned on a thread on such an important news item as this. Please play nice, people. There's lots of threads where you can act like prime doofuses without picking up warnings but surely you can see this isn't an appropriate discussion for LolZifying?


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> I've really no idea why people would rather act like idiots and get themselves banned on a thread on such an important news item as this. Please play nice, people. There's lots of threads where you can act like prime doofuses without picking up warnings but surely you can see this isn't an appropriate discussion for LolZifying?


Yes I don't know why you joined in with personal attacks against me and when I responded rather mildly put up a warning against abuse either.


----------



## planetgeli (Feb 21, 2019)

treelover said:


> Corbyn backs her return, that must be good for five points off the polls.



Yes. Because despite him saying the correct thing (come back, face questioning, possible trial) he should have known to present it (because it’s politics, and that’s the game he fucking plays) in some way that couldn’t simply be represented as “Corbyn backs the anti-Christ’s return!” - which is all that’s playing out on BBC right now to anyone paying only slight attention. Or shut up and not say it at all.

He’s a bit rubbish at playing the game.


----------



## editor (Feb 21, 2019)

maomao said:


> Yes I don't know why you joined in with personal attacks against me and when I responded rather mildly put up a warning against abuse either.


I didn't "join in". Stop bullshitting and stop doing your best to drag this thread off topic. If you have a complaint take it to the feedback forum. Any more off-topic posts will result in a warning to whoever posts them up. End.


----------



## Shechemite (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> I Stop bullshitting and stop doing your best to drag this thread off topic



No need for that kind of language


----------



## maomao (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> I didn't "join in". Stop bullshitting and stop doing your best to drag this thread off topic. If you have a complaint take it to the feedback forum. Any more off-topic posts will result in a warning to whoever posts them up. End.


So why doesn't Pickman's model or yourself receive a warning for abuse? Cause you're an ignorant cunt that's why.

/suicide by mod


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 21, 2019)

Enjoy your break, maomao.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 21, 2019)

Theisticle said:


> It was clear that Begum spoke under duress... here’s why:



As she has said sh'es an ISIS supporter she may  well support  al-Khansaa.Her only complaint that we know of is that ISIS have lost.


----------



## tim (Feb 21, 2019)

Former Nazi collaborators in Belgium and former SS members resident in the UK receiving pensions relating to their service to the German state

Germany paying pensions to Nazi collaborators in UK and Belgium




> “the same in the UK, where former SS people also receive payments directly from the German länder [states] without the amounts being taxed or communicated to the British authorities”.




Still one can hardly compare DAESH teens to cuddly Nazi pensioners, can one?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 21, 2019)

planetgeli said:


> Yes. Because despite him saying the correct thing (come back, face questioning, possible trial) he should have known to present it (because it’s politics, and that’s the game he fucking plays) in some way that couldn’t simply be represented as “Corbyn backs the anti-Christ’s return!” - which is all that’s playing out on BBC right now to anyone paying only slight attention. Or shut up and not say it at all.
> 
> He’s a bit rubbish at playing the game.


Only hope the next interviewer doesn't ask him whether she should join the Labour party.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

Theisticle said:


> It was clear that Begum spoke under duress... here’s why:



She makes a superb case for separating the known IS populace from the rest and bombing the ISIS bit.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 21, 2019)

editor said:


> Next personal insult on this thread gets a warning.
> 
> The line has been drawn here. Cross it at your peril.
> 
> ---------------------------


Can I just clarify if it's ok to call Danny Dyer a bandwagon jumping cuntbubble cockwomble?


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 21, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Can I just clarify if it's ok to call Danny Dyer a bandwagon jumping cuntbubble cockwomble?



No it is not.


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 21, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> No it is not.


You cockneys always stick up for that cunt


----------



## tonysingh (Feb 21, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> You cockneys always stick up for that cunt



Fucking cockney??  wash your mouth out, I'm from south London.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 21, 2019)

tonysingh said:


> Fucking cockney??  wash your mouth out, I'm from south London.


(((South London)))


----------



## Chilli.s (Feb 21, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Can I just clarify if it's ok to call Danny Dyer a bandwagon jumping cuntbubble cockwomble?


Far more eloquent than he is.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Feb 21, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Younge, one of the few good journalists at the graun:
> 
> Shamima Begum has a right to British citizenship, whether you like it or not | Gary Younge





> Begum has expressed regret. She said: “I was hoping Britain would understand I made a mistake, a very big mistake, because I was young and naive.” Of Isis-controlled Raqqa, she has remarked: “There was so much oppression and corruption that I don’t think they deserved victory.”


The corruption she was talking about was the IS thugs were torturing "true Muslims" and not just "apostates" and "devil worshipers" i.e. Shia and Yazidi 





> Second, when Begum went to Syria she was a child. She must take personal responsibility for what she did. But our society understands that we have collective responsibility for children]


People who join National Action at 15 and are still unrepentant members at 19 do not get tried in child courts.

The home secretary should not be able to arbitrarily revoke citizenship.
But she actively sought out to join a genocidal fascist regime. She knew who they were and what they were doing. Had she been filmed using racially derogatory language on a bus, I am sure Mr Younge would have had much sterner words for her.


----------



## teqniq (Feb 21, 2019)

Still need to be tried here. Whatever. She is not imo _somebody else's problem_.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> You cockneys always stick up for that cunt


I think he’s a knob, but then I’m a middle class Sajid Javid clone.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2019)

ferrelhadley said:


> The corruption she was talking about was the IS thugs were torturing "true Muslims" and not just "apostates" and "devil worshipers" i.e. Shia and Yazidi People who join National Action at 15 and are still unrepentant members at 19 do not get tried in child courts..


I think he's too soft on her, and the comparison to his own mild youthful misadventure in Holland is facile. But he's dead right about Javid. And he's right to link this to the ongoing Windrush disgrace as well. This government's attitude towards immigrants and the children of immigrants is disgusting.

ETA: the other thing I think he's wrong about is to set so much store on whether or not she was an active combatant. I think that misunderstands the project. She almost certainly wasn't. That wasn't her role in that society. But that doesn't absolve her of responsibility for the killings.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think he's too soft on her, and the comparison to his own mild youthful misadventure in Holland is facile. But he's dead right about Javid. And he's right to link this to the ongoing Windrush disgrace as well. This government's attitude towards immigrants and the children of immigrants is disgusting.
> 
> ETA: the other thing I think he's wrong about is to set so much store on whether or not she was an active combatant. I think that misunderstands the project. She almost certainly wasn't. That wasn't her role in that society. But that doesn't absolve her of responsibility for the killings.



To be fair, if she has or hasn't killed anyone would be quite a big factor for me in that whole 'risk analysis' thing. That's not me absolving her morally just saying if you haven't killed people that's different to if you have. 

Going back to your point about Ireland (think it was you) communities obviously sheltered and supported paramilitaries engaged in sectarian killings, but I doubt you'd argue for the communities to be imprisoned along with the paramilitaries.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> To be fair, if she has or hasn't killed anyone would be quite a big factor for me in that whole 'risk analysis' thing. That's not me absolving her morally just saying if you haven't killed people that's different to if you have.
> 
> Going back to your point about Ireland (think it was you) communities obviously sheltered and supported paramilitaries engaged in sectarian killings, but I doubt you'd argue for the communities to be imprisoned along with the paramilitaries.


My only point about NI was to do with the reasons behind the release of prisoners. 

The 'community' in question here isn't comparable to that of NI. Neither Begum nor anyone else in IS just happened to be part of a 'community' in which conflict broke out. It's not at all comparable.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 21, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My only point about NI was to do with the reasons behind the release of prisoners.
> 
> The 'community' in question here isn't comparable to that of NI. Neither Begum nor anyone else in IS just happened to be part of a 'community' in which conflict broke out. It's not at all comparable.



I'm not comparing the two at all - as you say in terms of the community it's different. I'm just saying we generally treat killers more harshly than those who support and protect killers.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 21, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not comparing the two at all - as you say in terms of the community it's different. I'm just saying we generally treat killers more harshly than those who support and protect killers.


That’s relative. I’d despise someone who voluntarily travelled to another continent to spend four years supporting rape and murder, more than someone who shot someone dead once because they were caught up in a political situation not of their own making.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> That’s relative. I’d despise someone who voluntarily travelled to another continent to spend four years supporting rape and murder, more than someone who shot someone dead once because they were caught up in a political situation not of their own making.



I'm not talking about who you despise more though, I'm talking about how we deal with the crimes people commit.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not talking about who you despise more though, I'm talking about how we deal with the crimes people commit.


And you can’t link the two?


----------



## ska invita (Feb 22, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I'm alright Javid


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not comparing the two at all - as you say in terms of the community it's different. I'm just saying we generally treat killers more harshly than those who support and protect killers.


You understate the position, I think, wrt IS. Begum was fulfilling her god-given role as wife and mother. Not my idea - that's IS's idea of a woman's place. Meanwhile the men were fulfilling their god-given roles as fighters for the new state. And she and other women/girls went there with the express purpose of marrying a fighter and having his children, remember. They had a  role to play in building the new state by populating it with new people.

And because of the above, I really don't see that much difference between women who joined IS and men who joined IS, and I think the likes of Younge in his piece are misguided in seeing her precise actions while in Syria as particularly relevant when considering who and what she is. While the summary justice being meted out in Iraq to IS members is concerning, and quite shocking in its brutality, the fact that they judge the women as harshly as the men is not so surprising.

ETA: Having said that, if she comes back here and is charged, she will only be able to be charged according to UK law, so that will be membership of IS and a few years in prison but no more than that. And that is right, in law. But the law doesn't always capture the complexity of moral positions and culpability. She will have got off lightly if that is what happens.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

ska invita said:


>


My new tagline.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 22, 2019)

not quite
try again>


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Having said that, if she comes back here and is charged, she will only be able to be charged according to UK law, so that will be membership of IS and a few years in prison but no more than that. And that is right, in law. But the law doesn't always capture the complexity of moral positions and culpability. She will have got off lightly if that is what happens.



Absolutely. It would be a grotesque failure of justice.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 22, 2019)

definitely wouldnt let her in the cricket club, even if she serves her sentence


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

ska invita said:


> not quite


Sorted.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 22, 2019)

not quite


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

ska invita said:


> definitely wouldnt let her in the cricket club, even if she serves her sentence


It pains me to say it but I reckon ISIS could muster a very decent team.

Well maybe not now.


----------



## ska invita (Feb 22, 2019)

jolly good show. best man won. 
Pimms?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

ska invita said:


> jolly good show. best man won.
> Pimms?


Chablis for me please, daaaaarling.

Chin chin!

<Give her a nudge and wish her happy belated from me>


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You understate the position, I think, wrt IS. Begum was fulfilling her god-given role as wife and mother. Not my idea - that's IS's idea of a woman's place. Meanwhile the men were fulfilling their god-given roles as fighters for the new state. And she and other women/girls went there with the express purpose of marrying a fighter and having his children, remember. They had a  role to play in building the new state by populating it with new people.
> 
> And because of the above, I really don't see that much difference between women who joined IS and men who joined IS, and I think the likes of Younge in his piece are misguided in seeing her precise actions while in Syria as particularly relevant when considering who and what she is. While the summary justice being meted out in Iraq to IS members is concerning, and quite shocking in its brutality, the fact that they judge the women as harshly as the men is not so surprising.
> 
> ETA: Having said that, if she comes back here and is charged, she will only be able to be charged according to UK law, so that will be membership of IS and a few years in prison but no more than that. And that is right, in law. But the law doesn't always capture the complexity of moral positions and culpability. She will have got off lightly if that is what happens.



I don't disagree, but we're supposed to have a different idea of what a women's place is, and act accordingly. 

Also don't disagree that the law doesn't really cover any of it, which is part of the reason I don't know why this thread is so long.


----------



## newbie (Feb 22, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Still need to be tried here. Whatever. She is not imo _somebody else's problem_.


here rather than Bangladesh or here rather than Syria? (or perhaps that should be the geographic area that used to be called Syria?)


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't disagree, but we're supposed to have a different idea of what a women's place is, and act accordingly.



On any analysis, her role - as she saw it, as IS saw it, and as it proved to be in practice - was to build IS capability.  It was to provide the emotional and domestic support which equipped IS fighters to wage their war of mass rape, torture and murder.  And it was to populate the abhorrent 'state'.

She's not just a loving wife of a man who happened to be a soldier; she was willing to marry any man the regime told her to, because her aim was to strengthen IS.  Women like her aren't passive accidental auxiliaries; they deliberately play an active, central, and crucial role in the IS project.  To pretend otherwise - that she's a 'jihadi bride' rather than a jihadi - is not only patronising, but also a failure to understand reality.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> On any analysis, her role - as she saw it, as IS saw it, and as it proved to be in practice - was to build IS capability.  It was to provide the emotional and domestic support which equipped IS fighters to wage their war of mass rape, torture and murder.  And it was to populate the abhorrent 'state'.
> 
> She's not just a loving wife of a man who happened to be a soldier; she was willing to marry any man the regime told her to, because her aim was to strengthen IS.  Women like her aren't passive accidental auxiliaries; they deliberately play an active, central, and crucial role in the IS project.  To pretend otherwise - that she's a 'jihadi bride' rather than a jihadi - is not only patronising, but also a failure to understand reality.



Did you not read my post? I said we don't see women in the same way she does. 

I didn't say she was or wasn't a Jihadi or a Jihadi bride.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did you not read my post? I said we don't see women in the same way she does.
> 
> I didn't say she was or wasn't a Jihadi or a Jihadi bride.



It wasn't clear what you meant. 

Do you see her as a jihadi?  And an active participant in the IS project?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2019)

The longer this goes on without a clear outcome the more likely i think the hand over to assad option becomes - it clears up many problems and may offer a number of advantages to the main players here. First off, it's not 'the kurds' who have her, it's the SDF - a politico-military formulation that the US imposed on the turkish syrian PKK in order to receive much wider military support and supply than they had been receiving around the time of kobani as the YPG. It isn't a fully kurdish grouping and it isn't supported by all kurds - in fact it has been used to silence politically dissenting kurdish groups and individuals. 

The PKK/SDF is right now in talks with assad about integrating with the Syrian military in order to retain some from of regional autonomy in the north east they currently control after assad bombs the remaining anti-regime forces and civilians to pieces in idlib. Assad has played the foreign angle very well throughout this war. The former handing her over to the latter will help both. The pkk can say that they are taking seriously their role in the assadist reconstruction of the country and helping to punish those who brought such devastation etc. The latter is, i think, unlikely to disappear her into the rape/torture/murder cells as he has to 20 000+ opponents of his regime during the revolution (helped along by ISIS, helped in turn by his security forces). He's much more likely to make her a symbol of magnanimous forgiveness and western hypocrisy in the international spotlight. Of course, he might well have her raped/tortured/disappeared but that's never been the main concern of the PKK. Either way, i think both would perceive that outcome as satisfactory - as might the UK. I was joking when i suggested this last week and was using her to highlight the much larger question of the still ongoing conflict and ISIS' role in it. No longer so sure.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> The longer this goes on without a clear outcome the more likely i think the hand over to assad option becomes - it clears up many problems and may offer a number of advantages to the main players here. First off, it's not 'the kurds' who have her, it's the SDF - a politico-military formulation that the US imposed on the turkish syrian PKK in order to receive much wider military support and supply than they had been receiving around the time of kobani as the YPG. It isn't a fully kurdish grouping and it isn't supported by all kurds - in fact it has been used to silence politically dissenting kurdish groups and individuals.
> 
> The PKK/SDF is right now in talks with assad about integrating with the Syrian military in order to retain some from of regional autonomy in the north east they currently control after assad bombs the remaining anti-regime forces and civilians to pieces in idlib. Assad has played the foreign angle very well throughout this war. The former handing her over to the latter will help both. The pkk can say that they are taking seriously their role in the assadist reconstruction of the country and helping to punish those who brought such devastation etc. The latter is, i think, unlikely to disappear her into the rape/torture/murder cells as he has to 20 000+ opponents of his regime during the revolution (helped along by ISIS, helped in turn by his security forces). He's much more likely to make her a symbol of magnanimous forgiveness and western hypocrisy in the international spotlight. Of course, he might well have her raped/tortured/disappeared but that's never been the main concern of the PKK. Either way, i think both would perceive that outcome as satisfactory - as might the UK. I was joking when i suggested this last week and was using her to highlight the much larger question of the still ongoing conflict and ISIS' role in it. No longer so sure.


many a true word spoken in jest


----------



## teqniq (Feb 22, 2019)

newbie said:


> here rather than Bangladesh or here rather than Syria? (or perhaps that should be the geographic area that used to be called Syria?)


What? Here as in the UK.


----------



## newbie (Feb 22, 2019)

teqniq said:


> What? Here as in the UK.


yes I understood what 'here' meant.  I was querying whether your preference for trying her here was instead of trying her in Bangladesh or instead of trying her in Syria (or perhaps subsequent to trying her there?).


----------



## teqniq (Feb 22, 2019)

She has no Bangladeshi citizenship so that is a non-starter. She was born and bought up in the UK so if it is deemed that she may have committed offences under terrorism legislation or similar she should be tried here. the SDF/Kurds already have a big problem on their hands with POW's and have offered to take her to somewhere safer to hand her over. Javid is a complete cunt for attempting to revoke her citizenship. She is very much our problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2019)

teqniq said:


> She has no Bangladeshi citizenship so that is a non-starter. She was born and bought up in the UK so if it is deemed that she may have committed offences under terrorism legislation or similar she should be tried here. the SDF/Kurds already have a big problem on their hands with POW's and have offered to take her to somewhere safer to hand her over. Javid is a complete cunt for attempting to revoke her citizenship. She is very much our problem.


What if it's possible for her to be tried in Syria for crimes committed there first?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> It wasn't clear what you meant.
> 
> Do you see her as a jihadi?  And an active participant in the IS project?



Yes, I do. But I don't see her as a combatant (based on the very linoted evidence I have).


----------



## teqniq (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What if it's possible for her to be tried in Syria for crimes committed there first?


No-one has offered that as an option have they? Besides which it's the principle or rather the complete lack of them that Javid seems to think he can play to the gallery with his nasty dog-whistle politics and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2019)

teqniq said:


> No-one has offered that as an option have they? Besides which it's the principle or rather the complete lack of them that Javid seems to think he can play to the gallery with his nasty dog-whistle politics and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.


Do we know that? Has anyone asked the people who suffered under ISIS?

Of course and hang him as high as you can for it.

What i'm noticing this last week though (and using your post as a hook rather than accusing you of it) is a sort of anti-racism that mirrors classical old school british imperialism. That says basically, she's a british citizen so it's our problem to deal with rather than the right of those in the areas in which the crimes were alleged to have taken place - the same way that the empire used to demand the people it sent robbing the world were only to face good old british justice. The demand isn't made of people who end up in jail in SEA after going there to rape children.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 22, 2019)

teqniq said:


> No-one has offered that as an option have they? Besides which it's the principle or rather the complete lack of them that Javid seems to think he can play to the gallery with his nasty dog-whistle politics and he shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.



Surely the principle is that she travelled to and joined a fascist colonisation of another country that raped killed tortured thousands and that if there is any evidence against her personally that she shouldnt be allowed to get away with it ?


----------



## newbie (Feb 22, 2019)

teqniq said:


> She has no Bangladeshi citizenship so that is a non-starter. She was born and bought up in the UK so if it is deemed that she may have committed offences under terrorism legislation or similar she should be tried here. the SDF/Kurds already have a big problem on their hands with POW's and have offered to take her to somewhere safer to hand her over. Javid is a complete cunt for attempting to revoke her citizenship. She is very much our problem.


cheers I understand now. 

That differentiates terrorists based on their nationality.  Western captives to be returned to their countries of origin, with some individuals locked up for life, but very unlikely to face the death penalty, while many others will have only minor restrictions and perhaps a de-radicalisation programme, or maybe serve relatively short terms for generic crimes. Judicial and punishment regimes elsewhere are very different.  Those returned to Chechnya or other parts of Russia may face harsh penalties. Those from Egypt or Pakistan could face the death penalty if returned, while the majority, who have Syrian or Iraqi nationality face not only the death penalty but are also perhaps unlikely to receive lenient treatment.  That doesn't seem just to me.


----------



## xenon (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Do we know that? Has anyone asked the people who suffered under ISIS?
> 
> Of course and hang him as high as you can for it.
> 
> What i'm noticing this last week though (and using your post a a hook rather than accusing you of it) is a sort of anti-racism that mirrors classical old school british imperialism. That says basically, she's a british citizen so it's our problem to deal with rather than the right of those in the areas in which the crimes were alleged to have taken place - the same way that the empire used to demand the people it sent robbing the world were only to face good old british justice. The demand isn't made of people who end up in jail in SEA after going there to rape children.



hmm good point. I've been arguing that should she make it back here, let UK justice take it's course. But yeah, I can't really object to her and others like her, facing justice in the regions their crimes were committed if that's possible.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, I do. But I don't see her as a combatant (based on the very linoted evidence I have).



To labour yesterday's fatuous Nazi analogy, Goebels wasn't a combatant either. 

But, more realistically,  you could say the same about anyone (including soldiers) behind the front line responsible for e.g. supplying ammunition.

The IS project was more, and required more from those seeking to make it happen, than merely combat. Without those other things, combat couldn't have happened, and, would have been pointless - no point fighting to establish a state that would die after one generation as there's nobody to populate it!

I see no reason to draw such a sharp distinction between those who materially assisted IS based on whether or not we know they engaged in front-line combat.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> What if it's possible for her to be tried in Syria for crimes committed there first?



 It definitely has some attractions.   But also some significant difficulties.  By whom would she be tried, and under what law?  Just as we must be very sceptical about Javid's antics, we should be wary of the real possibility of lending the credibility of legal process to a charade that wouldn't meet the minimum requirements of any basic principles of legalised natural justice.


----------



## newbie (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> It definitely has some attractions.   But also some significant difficulties.  By whom would she be tried, and under what law?  Just as we must be very sceptical about Javid's antics, we should be wary of the real possibility of lending the credibility of legal process to a charade that wouldn't meet the minimum requirements of any basic principles of legalised natural justice.


I agree with that, which is why i proposed* an international effort to create and fund structures to help local people deal with the problem.

* yes, a non-influential anonymous random on an obscure forum proposing an international diplomatic and legal effort is laughable but there you go


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> It definitely has some attractions.   But also some significant difficulties.  By whom would she be tried, and under what law?  Just as we must be very sceptical about Javid's antics, we should be wary of the real possibility of lending the credibility of legal process to a charade that wouldn't meet the minimum requirements of any basic principles of legalised natural justice.


There are a number of competing options. The PKK/PYD/SDF have been calling for the establishment of international courts in northern syria since they took raqqa at the end of 2017. They also manage to run local courts in the area's they control to harass and intimidate political opponents and have done for many years now.  But you know, this also isn't for the PPK alone to decide either. The people they have captured and the ones now in camps have committed crimes across all of Syria, more so from the non-kurdish areas in fact.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> There are a number of competing options. The PKK/PYD/SDF have been calling for the establishment of international courts in northern syria since they took raqqa at the end of 2017. They also manage to run local courts in the area's they control to harass and intimidate political opponents and have done for many years now.  But you know, this also isn't for the PPK alone to decide either. The people they have captured and the ones now in camps have committed crimes across all of Syria, more so from the non-kurdish areas in fact.



True enough, but still fraught with issues.  Not least of all what law they will say she's broken (which is a different question from who will try her).

That said, it probably would have been the least bad outcome if, before all this happened, she was tried locally by the victims of her regime, and handed a stiff sentence.  We'd avoid the dangerous precedent of a two tier citizenship for those born in Britain (I know there's been lots of these strippings, but they tend to be for naturalised rather than UK- born British citizens), whilst avoiding the risk and cost of having to bring her to the UK, and ensuring she received a punishment commensurate with the horrors of the regime of which she was part.  And the racist idea that 'our' right to try our own trumps the rights of those who are most affected by their crimes (which, as pointed out, is hypocritically applied re e.g. CSA tourists).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> There are a number of competing options. The PKK/PYD/SDF have been calling for the establishment of international courts in northern syria since they took raqqa at the end of 2017. They also manage to run local courts in the area's they control to harass and intimidate political opponents and have done for many years now.  But you know, this also isn't for the PPK alone to decide either. The people they have captured and the ones now in camps have committed crimes across all of Syria, more so from the non-kurdish areas in fact.


Can I ask, what if any influence do you think the UN has here? What prospects are there for significant UN involvement?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> True enough, but still fraught with issues.  Not least of all what law they will say she's broken (which is a different question from who will try her).
> 
> That said, it probably would have been the least bad outcome if, before all this happened, she was tried locally by the victims of her regime, and handed a stiff sentence.  We'd avoid the dangerous precedent of a two tier citizenship for those born in Britain (I know there's been lots of these strippings, but they tend to be for naturalised rather than UK- born British citizens), whilst avoiding the risk and cost of having to bring her to the UK, and ensuring she received a punishment commensurate with the horrors of the regime of which she was part.


I think any resolution of her situation is only coming to come about via a wider international solution of the fighters in captivity, as a product of that. The swiss this week have made suggestions about establishing  on-the-spot local courts as they don't want to take the remaining fighters from their country back. Of course, if it's just left there there will be many individual cases like this all over again when the sentences are served unless the citizenship and related issues are somehow dealt with at the time.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can I ask, what if any influence do you think the UN has here? What prospects are there for significant UN involvement?


Limited to none. The rapprochement between the regime and the pkk means that international stuff is going to have to come through what the former regards as friendly countries - russia and iran, who would then vet or oversee any thing like international courts, and it would be a heavily militarised process rather than a civil one - unless there is some agreement to remove them all temporarily to another state. (The captured iraqi fighters are simply being sent over the border by the military with little or no legal process as far as i can see. But they are wanted home by iraq so not quite the same).


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think any resolution of her situation is only coming to come about via a wider international solution of the fighters in captivity, as a product of that. The swiss this week have made suggestions about establishing  on-the-spot local courts as they don't want to take the remaining fighters from their country back. Of course, if it's just left there there will be many individual cases like this all over again when the sentences are served unless the citizenship and related issues are somehow dealt with at the time.



Yes, whilst they might be willing to offload prisoners on a case-by-case basis, I can't imagine they have any appetite to deal with them locally _ad hoc_.  There'll need to be internationally backed legal infrastructure. Hard to see how that'll come about though. But, like you say, to some extent it only postpones the problems unless citizenship is resolved, anyway.   Though I suspect the sentence for fighters themselves would likely be death, which'd mean fewer citizenship disputes!


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

teqniq said:


> She has no Bangladeshi citizenship so that is a non-starter.


This is not true. By Bangladeshi law she is a Bangladeshi citizen until she reaches 21 years of age.  

Bangladesh are choosing to ignore this and saying that she won't be admitted.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is not true. By Bangladeshi law she is a Bangladeshi citizen until she reaches 21 years of age.
> 
> Bangladesh are choosing to ignore this and saying that she won't be admitted.


Where's that from Spy?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Where's that from Spy?


Several immigration lawyers have made the point in tv interviews and Athos has linked to the relevent Bangladeshi law on here somewhere.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Where's that from Spy?



I quoted the relevant part of the legislation yesterday.  S.5 Citizenship Act 1951.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is not true. By Bangladeshi law she is a Bangladeshi citizen until she reaches 21 years of age.
> 
> Bangladesh are choosing to ignore this and saying that she won't be admitted.


And? Is anyone surprised. Highly likely the Bangladeshi government had never heard of her till Javid's announcement. I'll put money on there being not on single document in the vast annals of Bangladeshi state bureaucracy that mentions Shamima Begum before this week. They are well within their rights to ask "who the fuck is this?" Meanwhile, I'll put double money on the UK bureaucracy having shit loads of documents referring to her, from birth cert, school records, NHS onwards.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> And? Is anyone surprised. Highly likely the Bangladeshi government had never heard of her till Javid's announcement. I'll put money on there being not on single document in the vast annals of Bangladeshi state bureaucracy that mentions Shamima Begum before this week. They are well within their rights to ask "who the fuck is this?" Meanwhile, I'll put double money on the UK bureaucracy having shit loads of documents referring to her, from birth cert, school records, NHS onwards.



That's not the test of citizenship under Bangladeshi (or, for that matter, UK law).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is not true. By Bangladeshi law she is a Bangladeshi citizen until she reaches 21 years of age.
> 
> Bangladesh are choosing to ignore this and saying that she won't be admitted.


It's not really as simple as that, though, is it? And Javid is being disingenuous to an extreme by claiming that she has dual nationality. Further, the wider consequences of declaring at a stroke that any British person under the age of 21 who has a Bangladeshi mother is not _as British_ as other under-21-year-olds who don't happen to have Bangladeshi mothers are potentially massively divisive.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Serge Forward said:


> And?


And that's it.



			
				littlebabyjesus  said:
			
		

> It's not really as simple as that, though, is it?


Yes.

From a purely legal perspective she is a Bangladeshi citizen and stripping her of her UK rights does not make her stateless.

That's legally.

How you view it morally is perhaps another matter.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not really as simple as that, though, is it? And Javid is being disingenuous to an extreme by claiming that she has dual nationality. Further, the wider consequences of declaring at a stroke that any British person under the age of 21 who has a Bangladeshi mother is not _as British_ as other under-21-year-olds who don't happen to have Bangladeshi mothers are potentially massively divisive.



Javid is a prick, but the position under Bangladeshi law does appear to be quite simple, and that she is (was!) a dual citizen (albeit it doesn't appear that Bangladesh will act lawfully).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> From a purely legal perspective she is a bangladeshi citizen .


There appear to be differing legal opinions on this point.


----------



## Serge Forward (Feb 22, 2019)

Morally? Hmm... I'm just following the paper trail.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Javid is a prick, but the position under Bangladeshi law does appear to be quite simple, and that she is (was!) a dual citizen (albeit it doesn't appear that Bangladesh will act lawfully).


Really? You can be a dual citizen without even knowing it? And moreover, a child can be a dual citizen without even knowing it. I'd want that principle tested in a court tbh.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2019)

Thanks both.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There appear to be differing legal opinions on this point.


There are two. 

The Bangladesh foreign minister's, and everyone else's.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? You can be a dual citizen without even knowing it?


Yes. Same with Ireland (as mentioned many times already).


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? You can be a dual citizen without even knowing it? I'd want that principle tested in a court tbh.



Yes. 

From memory, it was tested in the cases that looked at the attempts to strip dual British-Bangladesi citizens of their British citizenship that the government lost at the end of last year (because the individuals were over 21).  But I'd have to reread the decisions to be certain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> There are two.
> 
> The Bangladesh foreign minister's, and everyone else's.


Well as I said above, I'd want the principle involved here to be tested in the Supreme Court. I would want a ruling over whether or not the UK can withdraw citizenship on the basis that a person has another citizenship that they don't even know about in a country they've never been to and that the country in question has no record of.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes.
> 
> From memory, it was tested in the cases that looked at the attempts to strip dual British-Bangladesi citizens of their British citizenship that the government lost at the end of last year (because the individuals were over 21).  But I'd have to reread the decisions to be certain.


So they can strip kids but not adults? As I said, I would want that tested in a court. There are clear discrimination issues at stake here.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> ... the government lost at the end of last year (because the individuals were over 21).  But I'd have to reread the decisions to be certain.


This is correct. They were older than 21.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> I quoted the relevant part of the legislation yesterday.  S.5 Citizenship Act 1951.


Been 'off-grid' for a couple of days...my bad for not thoroughly thread catching-up.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So they can strip kids but not adults?


That's not the substantive part of this. 

Under Bangladeshi law those whose parents are born there are _automatically _Bangladeshi citizens until the age of 21. At that age their citizenship lapses unless they take formal steps to retain it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> That's not the substantive part of this.
> 
> Under Bangladeshi law those whose parents are born there are _automatically _Bangladeshi citizens until the age of 21. At that age their citizenship lapses unless they take formal steps to retain it.


It is the substantive part. Discrimination by a British court on the basis of age. Plus a basic point of principle regarding whether or not a British citizen can have dual nationality imposed on them against their will by the actions or laws a second state.

And the age thing makes this a very weak case. It is normal in many places for the question of citizenshiop to be left open until adulthood - often 18, in this case 21 - at which point the person can choose. Here, a 'choice' is being forced upon someone who probably wasn't even aware that such a choice existed.


----------



## maomao (Feb 22, 2019)

How's the rule of law doing in Bangladesh then? Last I heard they were exciling disobedient judges. Good luck getting her application through court.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So they can strip kids but not adults? As I said, I would want that tested in a court. There are clear discrimination issues at stake here.



The Home Sec can remove British citizenship from those with dual citizenship (assuming they meet the other criteria).  In respect of those born outside of Bangladesh to a Bangladeshi parent, they are automatically Bangladeshi citizens until they reach 21, at which point their Bangladeshi citizenship lapses uness they take active steps to keep it.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Discrimination by a British court on the basis of age.


Rubbish. It's Bangladesh who would remove (lapse) her citizenship based on her age.

Britain have removed her UK citizenship based on the fact that she holds another (dual national).


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> How's the rule of law doing in Bangladesh then? Last I heard they were exciling disobedient judges. Good luck getting her application through court.



She doesn't need to apply for citizenship.  She has it.  Which was enough to enable Javid to stip her of her British citizenship.  Whether or not she's sucessful in applying for e.g. a Bangladeshi passport is on no legal consquesnce to the UK.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Rubbish. It's Bangladesh who would remove (lapse) her citizenship based on her age.
> 
> Britain have removed her UK citizenship based on the fact that she holds another (dual national).


And that second bit is the bit I would challenge in a British court. Does she hold another? Can someone hold a nationality without even knowing? Can a child be forcibly considered a dual national by the UK in this way? There are a lot of questions here.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And that second bit is the bit I would challenge in a British court. Does she hold another? Can someone hold a nationality without even knowing? Can a child be forcibly considered a dual national by the UK in this way? There are a lot of questions here.


The answers to the first two are yes, and yes, as has been explained here. As to the third, I don't know if it's been tested. The cases that Athos mentioned failed because both of the subjects had exceeded 21 years of age. Not for any other reason.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2019)

Interesting piece in the Times of all places. It's behind a paywall so here ot is: 


Twelve hours before she fell into the eye of a social, legal and political storm, almost nothing that Shamima Begum told me was of particular surprise. Sitting together for 90 minutes, one-to-one, in the yard of the al-Hawl refugee camp that afternoon a week ago, she spoke very much like every other member of a radical Islamic militant group I had ever met.

Her lack of remorse? Her lack of regret? The failure to apologise? Her acceptance of the beheadings of journalists and aid workers?
I was not surprised by any of it, and nor should anyone else be. After four years living in the so-called caliphate, with no access to the outside world beyond that given to her by her Dutch Isis husband, Ms Begum behaved and spoke in the precise and predictable manner of any other indoctrinated member of Islamic State, among whose devotees she still lives at al-Hawl.

To expend anger over her point of view is a waste of energy. To expect different is naive. Over the past 25 years I have met jihadists in Bosnia, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. They always sound the same.

Moreover, far from being removed from the thrall of the Isis death cult, the young British woman radicalised as a 15-year-old girl continues to live kettled within its confines. Most of the 40,000 people in al-Hawl camp belong to Isis families, and discipline is rigidly enforced there by foreign members of al-Khansaa, the all-female Isis morality police who burn down tents and beat women accused of transgression in the camp.
So not only will Ms Begum’s capabilities for individual thought, reason and feeling have been stunted by spending so long in Isis territory at such an influential age, she also lacks the liberty to speak freely even if she wanted to.

Yet unlike Sajid Javid, the home secretary, who has chosen to surf the national mood of rage towards the former Bethnal Green schoolgirl by revoking her British citizenship, I believe there is every reason to repatriate, investigate and rehabilitate — not banish — Ms Begum.
Aside from the specific legalities and moralities regarding her status as a minor when she entered Syria, buried within the rote-like repetitions of Isis vernacular that she used when speaking to me, Ms Begum also showed traits suggesting she would be an ideal candidate for a de-radicalisation programme.

Though much of the British media has collaborated with the popular fury, focusing on Ms Begum’s apparent inability to express regret or remorse, rushing to judge her on this basis, in reality the 19-year-old woman displayed considerable evidence of self-doubt and individual thought, despite the constraints of her circumstances.

The details of our meeting need a brief resume, as they were unique, not just for the amount of time and total privacy they afforded, but also because it was her first exposure to the outside world since she entered Syria in 2015; indeed, her first time alone.
We met in a reception room at al-Hawl early last Wednesday afternoon. Ms Begum entered the room in the company of another Isis wife, a Canadian called Amy Lucia Vasconez, 34, the widowed mother of two small boys.

A Syrian camp administrator and two foreign aid workers were in the room, as well as my interpreter. I asked for total privacy to conduct the interview and then left the room with both Isis women and moved to sit with them in a corner of the yard outside. No one else was present. After ten minutes Amy Vasconez also left. I continued speaking with Ms Begum for nearly an hour. 

She was reluctant at that stage for the interview to be taped, although later she agreed. The last 22 minutes of our conversation was recorded. The preceding hour and the final five minutes were not.
There are methods for interviewing radicals. Disassociation is a prime necessity for the interviewer: there is no point, for example, in allowing emotion or contempt to cloud the interview. I am not there to judge the interviewee. I am there to extract information and measure the likely extent of their radicalisation.

The need to find common ground early in the conversation is another requirement. I met Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, the two alleged members of the so-called Beatles Isis cell, in a jail in Syria last year. Despite their alleged involvement in torture and murder we managed to communicate over the shared ground of the Golborne Road in west London, near where we all had lived, and so we recapped on fish and chips, police and thieves. Sometimes we laughed together too. At one point I recalled being shot while a hostage in Syria and they cried “sobering, sobering”, trilling with delight.

“How much do you think you’d have been worth if you came into Islamic State’s hands?” Kotey had grinned.
“More than you are now!” I replied and we shared a good laugh at our reversed circumstances, loathing each other all the while.

I certainly did not loathe Shamima Begum. In essence, she was a classic victim turned potential perpetrator: the groomed minor sat before me as a radicalised young adult. Despite her predictable arrogance and didactic manner, her aura was primarily that of a confused and vulnerable young London woman. Most of the time we were together it seemed too that despite her outward composure she was in a state of grief and shock. Alone, frightened, she wanted someone to speak to. All I had to do was listen, coax and engage.
She spoke repeatedly and in anger over her husband’s six-and-a-half month imprisonment and torture in an Isis jail over spying charges. She talked also of the hypocrisy, cruelty and oppression within the organisation.
“I am scared,” she said. “I am so confused. I’m really naive.

“There’s so much oppression and corruption going on [within Isis] that I don’t really think they deserve the victory. Dawlah [Islamic State] has actually killed Muslims. People that have fought for them, they’ve killed. And for what? So you say you kill the non-Muslims and take care of the Muslims, but they don’t do that.”

“My husband said that while he was in [an Isis] prison there were men that had been tortured so badly that they were like ‘I’m just going to admit to being a spy so they can kill me’.”

These are extraordinary remarks for an Isis devotee to make, and suggest that within the mental confines placed upon her by the so-called caliphate there lurks an independently minded young woman who with the right help may be able to emerge from her radicalised state.
Indeed, Ms Begum is likely to be one of the most suitable adult candidates for rehabilitation of the scores of British adults who joined Isis and are believed to be in custody in northern Syria.

From a practical point of security, of course, Britain’s decision not to repatriate its Isis fighters, their wives and children from Syria is nonsensical. It is hypocritical too, as the public policy is a reversal of what has already been going on in private.

Since 2012, the UK has allowed about 400 British members of Islamic State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, once al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Syria, to return home. The majority of them have been male fighters. That Mr Javid has now chosen in public to revoke the citizenship of a young woman from Bethnal Green who was indoctrinated by Isis as a minor is an opportunistic decision made purely to pander to national mood, and has no foot in national security considerations.

Indeed, if the home secretary were to make his decisions based upon security, then he would push for the prompt repatriation from Syria of every single British Isis member, including Kotey and Elsheikh. The current situation, whereby more than 900 foreign fighters and nearly 3,000 foreign family members from 49 countries are cooped up in camps alongside thousands of Syrian and Iraqi Isis members in one of the most unstable parts of the Middle East is unsustainable; a calamity waiting to happen.
Yet so far, in the week since Ms Begum’s story emerged, little evidence of reasoned, informed consideration and debate has appeared. We would do well to realise that victory against Isis will be measured in no small part by our ability to have the confidence in our own legal system and values in dealing with British citizens who joined the jihadists.

If our institutions and sense of worth cannot deal fairly and appropriately with a runaway schoolgirl from Bethnal Green, who may well be more deserving of rescue and rehabilitation than hatred and condemnation, then we will indeed have become a very little England.

Decoding Shamima Begum: why we shouldn’t be surprised by her lack of remorse


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 22, 2019)

There is a clear difference between being entitled to something and actually claiming it. Regardless of her entitlement she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen and never has been. Never sort it, maybe never known she was entitled to claim it etc. etc.

Javid will get roasted over this legally. It was a cunt's trick and I doubt very much he will get away with it. Good.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> There is a clear difference between being entitled to something and actually claiming it. Regardless of her entitlement she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen and never has been.


Read the thread.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The answers to the first two are yes, and yes, as has been explained here. As to the third, I don't know if it's been tested. The cases that Athos mentioned failed because both of the subjects had exceeded 21 years of age. Not for any other reason.


Right, the argument put there was that they were over 21, and hadn't sought Bangladeshi citizenship so weren't Bangladeshi citizens, so the decision was overturned. To not overturn a decision on the basis of a person being under 21 will raise its own set of issues that will need to be tested, and arguments put forward as to how this is unlawful. If any good at all comes of this shitfest, it may be a clarification in the courts that the UK state cannot do this, and UK citizens with Bangladeshi mothers don't have to wait until they are 21 to gain full UK citizenship due to a detail in Bangladeshi law of which they are probably not even aware. We have a duty as citizens to know UK law - ignorance of the law is not an excuse - but we absolutely do not have a duty as citizens to know the law of every other country in the world.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Right, the argument put there was that they were over 21, and hadn't sought Bangladeshi citizenship so weren't Bangladeshi citizens, so the decision was overturned.


Yes. They were _no longer_ Bangladeshi citizens.


> To not overturn a decision on the basis of a person being under 21 will raise its own set of issues that will need to be tested, and arguments put forward as to how this is unlawful.


Perhaps, but you're still putting the cart before the horse. It wouldn't be upheld on the basis of them being under 21 _per se. _It would/may be upheld on the basis of them holding dual nationalities. Bangladesh removing the automatic citizenship at 21 is a matter for them, not Britain.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yes.
> 
> Perhaps, but you're still putting the cart before the horse. It wouldn't be upheld on the basis of them being under 21 _per se. _It would/may be upheld on the basis of them holding dual nationalities. Bangladesh removing the automatic citizenship at 21 is a matter for them, not Britain.


You are totally missing my point here. This is a question of UK law, not Bangladeshi law.

Courts only test the arguments put before them. So in this case, if the two people in question's lawyers were smart, they would have kept it very simple - they are over 21, haven't applied for Bangladeshi citizenship, and therefore by Bangladeshi law are not Bangladeshi citizens. Job done, case won. No need to make any other arguments. But that doesn't mean that they would have lost if they had been under 21, merely that they would have had to present different arguments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are totally missing my point here. This is a question of UK law, not Bangladeshi law.


er this is a question of international law


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You are totally missing my point here. This is a question of UK law, not Bangladeshi law.


 Why?

Does the law allow the removal of UK rights from dual nationality holders? ... Yes. As long as it doesn't make the subject stateless ... public interest ... etc 

Does Bangladeshi law consider those with Bangladeshi born parents to automatically be Bangladeshi citizens until they're 21? ... Yes.

Is Begum under 21? ... Yes.

Does she therefore legally hold Bangladeshi citizenship? ... Yes.

Does removing her UK citizenship make her _de jure_ stateless? ... No.

That is the legal argument that will be made by the HS if he chooses to pursue this. You may not like it, and elements of it will be tested in appeals, but that's what it is at the moment.


----------



## maomao (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> She doesn't need to apply for citizenship.  She has it.  Which was enough to enable Javid to stip her of her British citizenship.  Whether or not she's sucessful in applying for e.g. a Bangladeshi passport is on no legal consquesnce to the UK.


It may be reasonable for the UK to expect her to have Bangladeshi nationality, whether known by her or not but if the Bangladeshi state flat out says she's not a citizen and she's not entering the country then she's not actually a citizen pending some sort of appeal in the Bangladeshi courts.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> It may be reasonable for the UK to expect her to have Bangladeshi nationality, whether known by her or not but if the Bangladeshi state flat out says she's not a citizen and she's not entering the country then she's not actually a citizen pending some sort of appeal in the Bangladeshi courts.


This is a more reasonable argument.

If Bangladesh say “fuck it, she's not a citizen”, which would appear to contradict their own law, does removing her UK citizenship make her _de facto_ stateless?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> It may be reasonable for the UK to expect her to have Bangladeshi nationality, whether known by her or not but if the Bangladeshi state flat out says she's not a citizen and she's not entering the country then she's not actually a citizen pending some sort of appeal in the Bangladeshi courts.


And appeal by whom, by the UK government?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is a more reasonable argument.
> 
> If Bangladesh say “fuck it, she’s not coming here”, which would appear to contradict their own law, does removing her UK citizenship make her _de facto_ stateless?


yes


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yes


I'd probably agree but this would need to be tested in law.


----------



## xenon (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is a more reasonable argument.
> 
> If Bangladesh say “fuck it, she's not a citizen”, which would appear to contradict their own law, does removing her UK citizenship make her _de facto_ stateless?



But then it would be Bangladesh who made her stateless if they did that now.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

xenon said:


> But then it would be Bangladesh who made her stateless if they did that now.


Yes. This would be argued.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'd probably agree but this would need to be tested in law.


that'd be de jure you meant then


----------



## maomao (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And appeal by whom, by the UK government?


I don't know. You probably need a Bangladeshi lawyer for that one. We've seen one clause (translated? is Bangladeshi law even in English?) saying that she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Surely it would take a slightly more thorough understanding of Bangladeshi law to say that there's no competing clause or law that can overrule that entitlement?

Have any other ISIS people tried to return to Bangladesh? Surely there have been some. What's happened to them?



xenon said:


> But then it would be Bangladesh who made her stateless if they did that now.



Their position is not that they're removing her citizenship it's that she never has been a citizen. Whether this is a position they could support in their own courts or not it's what they're saying. Which would mean that she'd never been a dual citizen.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> It may be reasonable for the UK to expect her to have Bangladeshi nationality, whether known by her or not but if the Bangladeshi state flat out says she's not a citizen and she's not entering the country then she's not actually a citizen pending some sort of appeal in the Bangladeshi courts.



That's not the position under our law, as paragraphs 69 and 70 of this judgement make clear - having Bangladeshi citizenship at birth is a matter of fact (in the eyes of a UK court), and a different one from being able to perusade the Bangladeshi authorities of that fact.

http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/G3 v SSHD 15.12.17.pdf


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> is Bangladeshi law even in English?


yes. yes, it is.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> Their position is not that they're removing her citizenship it's that she never has been a citizen. Whether this is a position they could support in their own courts or not it's what they're saying. Which would mean that she'd never been a dual citizen.


Yes, but unless there's something in Bangladeshi law that excludes certain people from their automatic citizenship under 21 rule (and Begum is subject to it), it's difficult to see how they'd successfully argue this.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

I wonder what the European Court of Human Rights would have to say on the matter. Maybe it could do the UK one final favour by forcing it to ditch such an obviously discriminatory law?


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> I don't know. You probably need a Bangladeshi lawyer for that one. We've seen one clause (translated? is Bangladeshi law even in English?) saying that she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Surely it would take a slightly more thorough understanding of Bangladeshi law to say that there's no competing clause or law that can overrule that entitlement?



Such an argument was tried in the case of G3; it failed.  It's settled UK law that a someone born outside Bangladesh to a Bangldeshi parent is a citizen of Bangladesh until they reach 21.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wonder what the European Court of Human Rights would have to say on the matter. Maybe it could do the UK one final favour by forcing it to ditch such an obviously discriminatory law?



I presume you mean discriminatory on the basis of age?  If so, I'd not hold out much hope - it's the Bangladeshi law that makes the age distinction, not the UK, and it's a settled principle that interpretation of foreign law by UK courts is a question of fact not law.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

if i'm understanding the laws here correctly, she'd have to make an application to have her citizenship recognised at a consulate or embassy, in addition to which she would need to have a range of supporting documents which it may not be possible for her to produce.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> that'd be de jure you meant then



Correcting your dad is never a good look.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Correcting your dad is never a good look.


yeh, but he gets things wrong so often


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2019)

maomao said:


> I don't know. You probably need a Bangladeshi lawyer for that one. We've seen one clause (translated? is Bangladeshi law even in English?) saying that she's entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. Surely it would take a slightly more thorough understanding of Bangladeshi law to say that there's no competing clause or law that can overrule that entitlement?
> 
> Have any other ISIS people tried to return to Bangladesh? Surely there have been some. What's happened to them?
> 
> ...



Bangladeshi law, as with Indian and Pakistani law, is written and published in English - a holdover from The Raj, and the so-called Glorious Empire.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, but he gets things wrong so often



He's getting old, his memory is failing, the incontinence pants are getting bigger...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's getting old, his memory is failing, the incontinence pants are getting bigger...


when it's cold he tries to put some over his head too.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Correcting your dad is never a good look.


Veeps, old chap 

How you doing?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Veeps, old chap
> 
> How you doing?



Fucking achey, because of this poxy "sunny with a lot of clamminess" weather. Otherwise, tip-top, old chap!

You? Had your prostate prodded recently?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> when it's cold he tries to put some over his head too.



He's been watching "Blackadder Goes Forth" again.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's been watching "Blackadder Goes Forth" again.


he has never seen blackadder goes forth, he had such fits when watching blackadder the third that we've never dared let him see it. he's terrified of baldrick, you see.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

ViolentPanda said:


> Had your prostate prodded recently?


Not medically!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'd probably agree but this would need to be tested in law.



And who's gonna pay for all this shit?

Tell you what, the answer is she'll be allowed back in to the UK. 

Knock the couple of million I have just saved the UK off my tax bills. 

Sorted.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Knock the couple of million I have just saved the UK off my tax bills.


I think it'll be interesting and they should tax you more to pay for it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Not like this government seems to mind losing in court. Losing in court, losing in parliament. It appears to be a strategy of sorts. Novel way to govern, I'll give them that.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not like this government seems to mind losing in court. Losing in court, losing in parliament. It appears to be a strategy of sorts. Novel way to govern, I'll give them that.



It allows them to say "we tried but our hands were tied", even if they lose.  And to string things out I  the meantime.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not like this government seems to mind losing in court. Losing in court, losing in parliament. It appears to be a strategy of sorts. Novel way to govern, I'll give them that.


not that novel


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not like this government seems to mind losing in court. Losing in court, losing in parliament. It appears to be a strategy of sorts. Novel way to govern, I'll give them that.


It's more sinister than that...they know they are doing dodgey shit. They just bank on people being too broken, lacking resources and/or dying  and not appealing. Same as treatment of welfare claimants, windrush generation and children etc. The removal of legal aid wasn't an accident.

It's a calculated risk. They don't care.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It's more sinister than that...they know they are doing dodgey shit. They just bank on people being too broken, lacking resources and/or dying  and not appealing. Same as treatment of welfare claimants, windrush generation and children etc. The removal of legal aid wasn't an accident.
> 
> It's a calculated risk. They don't care.



I think the lower ceiling for “honourable resignation” is now somewhere around killing a whole family while driving pissed.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> It's more sinister than that...they know they are doing dodgey shit. They just bank on people being too broken, lacking resources and/or dying  and not appealing. Same as treatment of welfare claimants, windrush generation and children etc. The removal of legal aid wasn't an accident.
> 
> It's a calculated risk. They don't care.



There's not many jobs where an individual can act in a way that, even if it's subsequently found to be unlawful, there'll be no consequences for them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

As well as the case of G3 (to which I liknke d earlier), anyone interesed in the law around this issue ought to read this: http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/E3 & N3.pdf


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> As well as the case of G3 (to which I liknke d earlier), anyone interesed in the law around this issue ought to read this: http://siac.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/Documents/outcomes/documents/E3 & N3.pdf


Can you do us a precis? I'll have a look at the weekend but I'm watching the cricket with wine and weed and not in the mood for massive slabs of legal text. I was actually hoping that you'd read and report on that lump from Bangladesh that Pickman's model posted earlier too!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 22, 2019)

Fuck Javid and his cunty tricks.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Can you do us a precis? I'll have a look at the weekend but I'm watching the cricket with wine and weed and not in the mood for massive slabs of legal text. I was actually hoping that you'd read and report on that lump from Bangladesh that Pickman's model posted earlier too!


C^3 chardonnay cannabis cricket


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Can you do us a precis? I'll have a look at the weekend but I'm watching the cricket with wine and weed and not in the mood for massive slabs of legal text. I was actually hoping that you'd read and report on that lump from Bangladesh that Pickman's model posted earlier too!



The precis of this and G3 (to which it refers extensively), together...

In certain circumstances, the Home Secretary can deprive British citizens of their British citizenship, as long as that would not make them stateless i.e. if they are dual citizens.

Children born outside of Bangladesh to Bangladeshi parents are automatially Bangladeshi citizens (regardless of whether they meet the procedural requirements to demonstrate that fact to the Bangladeshi authorities), not simply people with a right to claim Bangladeshi citizenship; ordinarily, Bangldeshis are not allowed dual citizenship; as such, for those with dual citizenship, Bangladeshi citizenship lapses at 21; however, they can apply to become dual citizens (again); but, some dual British Bangladeshi citizens don't need to do so, as they don't automatically lose their Bangladeshi citizenship on acquiring British citizenship; however, that proviso doesn't apply to those who've been British from birth (it applies to Bangladeshis who subsequently acquire British citizenship).

Accordingly, in the case of those appelants, who were over 21 and British from birth, they were not dual citizens at the time of the Home Secretary's order, which meant the effect of it would have been to make them stateless, so their appeal was upheld.

Plus a load of interesting, but less pertinent procedural issues, and a lot of criticism of the state of Bangladeshi law and bangladeshi expert witnesses.

ETA: the judgment addresses the legislation to which Pickmans referred.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> The precis of this and G3 (to which it refers extensively), together...
> 
> In certain circumstances, the Home Secretary can deprive British citizens of their British citizenship, as long as that would not make them stateless i.e. if they are dual citizens.
> 
> ...


Perfect. Cheers. 

I was actually surprised when I read that case the other day. Why would he bother, knowing that they were over 21? That much seemed pretty obvious.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Perfect. Cheers.
> 
> I was actually surprised when I read that case the other day. Why would he bother, knowing that they were over 21? That much seemed pretty obvious.



I'd say: because it's expedient for his personal ambitions to portray himsef as tough - even if the decision is overturned by the courts, he can say he tried - and, becuse he realises there's a good chance that appellants won't have the resources to effectively challenge him, in any event.

He would say: he believed there was an arguable case that the 2008 Instruction applied (or was treated as applying in practice by Bangladeshi officals) to Bangladeshi dual nationals who were British from birth (which would have got round the age point).


----------



## friedaweed (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I think he’s a knob, but then I’m a middle class Sajid Javid clone.


Well I didn't want to mention it mate


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> There's not many jobs where an individual can act in a way that, even if it's subsequently found to be unlawful, there'll be no consequences for them.



Copper. You can lie in court and keep your job if you're a copper. You can shoot an innocent man in the back and get six months' paid leave.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> Well I didn't want to mention it mate


I've spent today playing with my resources.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Copper. You can lie in court and keep your job if you're a copper. You can shoot an innocent man in the back and get six months' paid leave.



Not if you're *found* to have done so.  (Accepting they often get away without being found out.)


----------



## tim (Feb 22, 2019)

.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

tim said:


> Some may find this interesting
> 
> .



Is it available in a non-Facebook format?


----------



## tim (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Is it available in a non-Facebook format?



Probably but the link doesn't work anyway, so could you delete it


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

tim said:


> Probably but the link doesn't work anyway, so could you delete it


 Done.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Is it something to do with nazis?


----------



## tim (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Is it something to do with nazis?


Worse than that Spymaster 



Decoding Shamima Begum: why we shouldn’t be surprised by her lack of remorse

And it's behind a paywall and has probably been posted before


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

tim said:


> Worse than that Spymaster
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Already posted earlier. It's just an opinion piece.


----------



## tim (Feb 22, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Already posted earlier. It's just an opinion piece.


The opinion of someone who's gone round to Shamina's for tea.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 22, 2019)

Quite.


----------



## editor (Feb 22, 2019)

tim said:


> Worse than that Spymaster
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Correct. And with all the text.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> if i'm understanding the laws here correctly, she'd have to make an application to have her citizenship recognised at a consulate or embassy, in addition to which she would need to have a range of supporting documents which it may not be possible for her to produce.



She doesn't have to make any application to be a Bangladeshi citizen; she is one already.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> The precis of this and G3 (to which it refers extensively), together...
> 
> In certain circumstances, the Home Secretary can deprive British citizens of their British citizenship, as long as that would not make them stateless i.e. if they are dual citizens.
> 
> ...



This is a dangerous precident. Any future Labour Home Secretary would be ably to deprive Boris Johnson of his British Citizenship at the drop of a hat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 22, 2019)

pseudonarcissus said:


> This is a dangerous precident. Any future Labour Home Secretary would be ably to deprive Boris Johnson of his British Citizenship at the drop of a hat.


Better to deprive him of his head


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> She doesn't have to make any application to be a Bangladeshi citizen; she is one already.


Her dad apparently lives there at the moment.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> Do we know that? Has anyone asked the people who suffered under ISIS?
> 
> Of course and hang him as high as you can for it.
> 
> What i'm noticing this last week though (and using your post as a hook rather than accusing you of it) is a sort of anti-racism that mirrors classical old school british imperialism. That says basically, she's a british citizen so it's our problem to deal with rather than the right of those in the areas in which the crimes were alleged to have taken place - the same way that the empire used to demand the people it sent robbing the world were only to face good old british justice. The demand isn't made of people who end up in jail in SEA after going there to rape children.



That's a fair point, definitely in terms of the "it's our responsibility" line. Although lots of people who do dodgy things in SEA get "bring British citizen back home" type campaigns. But it doesn't seem at the moment like anyone desperately wants to deal with her does it? Genuine question not seen it suggested anywhere on the thread.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> There are a number of competing options. The PKK/PYD/SDF have been calling for the establishment of international courts in northern syria since they took raqqa at the end of 2017. They also manage to run local courts in the area's they control to harass and intimidate political opponents and have done for many years now.  But you know, this also isn't for the PPK alone to decide either. The people they have captured and the ones now in camps have committed crimes across all of Syria, more so from the non-kurdish areas in fact.



Ignore that last Q answered for me


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> To labour yesterday's fatuous Nazi analogy, Goebels wasn't a combatant either.
> 
> But, more realistically,  you could say the same about anyone (including soldiers) behind the front line responsible for e.g. supplying ammunition.
> 
> ...



I would consider Goebels a combatant personally. 

The distinction I made was in terms of risk, which I think is reasonable. I might not want to punish a soldier but I would be keen to clarify that they had no malicious intent given the weapons training etc.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> The distinction I made was in terms of risk, which I think is reasonable. I might not want to punish a soldier but I would be keen to clarify that they had no malicious intent given the weapons training etc.



Malicious intent sure helps if you're going to be effective.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I would consider Goebels a combatant personally.
> 
> The distinction I made was in terms of risk, which I think is reasonable. I might not want to punish a soldier but I would be keen to clarify that they had no malicious intent given the weapons training etc.



I think we disagree about the risk Begum poses and how effectively that could be mitigated on her return.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> I think we disagree about the risk Begum poses and how effectively that could be mitigated on her return.



Are you saying you have enough evidence to even assess the possible extent of such a risk?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> I think we disagree about the risk Begum poses and how effectively that could be mitigated on her return.



Probably. I don't think she looks bright enough to convert people to Islamic terrorism for example. Or that she'll be likely to get the chance. Or even that she would particularly want to. 

But I think you'll probably struggle to disagree that - for example - a Daesh fighter with knowledge of making bombs would pose a greater risk. 

It's all guesswork obviously, she might well have made bombs, killed people, chopped heads off. But I doubt it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Are you saying you have enough evidence to even assess the possible extent of such a risk?



I know she believed in a murderous ideology and appears unrepentant. I know she is cunning and willing to break the law.  I consider it likely that she has contacts with other extremists. And possible that she has some formal training.  These's enough to assess the likelihood of the risk materialising and the likely consequences of that, and I recognise how difficult it would be to mitigate. And I don't see how any benefit of her returning to the UK outweighs that risk, except insofar as the harms caused by the particular mechanism by which the state currently seeks to exclude her.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Probably. I don't think she looks bright enough to convert people to Islamic terrorism for example. Or that she'll be likely to get the chance. Or even that she would particularly want to.
> 
> But I think you'll probably struggle to disagree that - for example - a Daesh fighter with knowledge of making bombs would pose a greater risk.
> 
> It's all guesswork obviously, she might well have made bombs, killed people, chopped heads off. But I doubt it.



Of course, a proven bombmaker represents a greater risk than a possible bombmaker.  But whatever the risk, it needs to weighed against any benefits, which appear to me to very slim.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> I know she believed in a murderous ideology and appears unrepentant. I know she is cunning and willing to break the law.  I consider it likely that she has contacts with other extremists. And possible that she has some formal training.  These's enough to assess the likelihood of the risk materialising and the likely consequences of that, and I recognise how difficult it would be to mitigate. And I don't see how any benefit of her returning to the UK outweighs that risk, except insofar as the harms caused by the particular mechanism by which the state currently seeks to exclude her.



There are a shitload who have already returned and a total paucity of data.  I wasn't asking for lawyerly rhetoric, I was enquiring about whether you, or anyone you can quote, has done some actual thinking.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

I'm not sure of the mileage in speculating about the risk she might pose or the possibility she might have her mind changed on certain things in a different environment. If she comes back, she gets charged and taken to prison to await trial. She can be assessed then, and potentially for a number of years after that while in prison.


----------



## two sheds (Feb 22, 2019)

Either way I can't see her son coming back here and being with either her or her family. Would be subject to pressure from extreme right and elsewhere if not taken into anonymized care.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> I know she believed in a murderous ideology and appears unrepentant. I know she is cunning and willing to break the law.  I consider it likely that she has contacts with other extremists. And possible that she has some formal training.  These's enough to assess the likelihood of the risk materialising and the likely consequences of that, and I recognise how difficult it would be to mitigate. And I don't see how any benefit of her returning to the UK outweighs that risk, except insofar as the harms caused by the particular mechanism by which the state currently seeks to exclude her.



I'm not convinced that you know she is cunning and willing to break the law. 



Athos said:


> Of course, a proven bombmaker represents a greater risk than a possible bombmaker.  But whatever the risk, it needs to weighed against any benefits, which appear to me to very slim.



Now you're arguing against something I didn't say. I just said I thought combatants would generally pose more risk.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not sure of the mileage in speculating about the risk she might pose or the possibility she might have her mind changed on certain things in a different environment. If she comes back, she gets charged and taken to prison to await trial. She can be assessed then, and potentially for a number of years after that while in prison.



Yeah, I don't think she presents a *special* risk compared to so many others.  It's a convenient bit of media spectacle.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> There are a shitload who have already returned and a total paucity of data.  I wasn't asking for lawyerly rhetoric, I was enquiring about whether you, or anyone you can quote, has done some actual thinking.



I explained my thinking. Of course the data is patchy.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Yeah, I don't think she presents a *special* risk compared to so many others.  It's a convenient bit of media spectacle.


No, neither do I. If she does come back, she won't make it past the airport, so all we can really know is that she would not present any immediate risk at all.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not convinced that you know she is cunning and willing to break the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Now you're arguing against something I didn't say. I just said I thought combatants would generally pose more risk.



She certainly was cunning and willing to break the law.  Of course, I can't know whether she still is, but, generally with use historical data to predict future risk. 

I'm not arguing against that. I'm agreeing with it, but going further.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> I explained my thinking. Of course the data is patchy.



I think the risk (if bringing her back) is unquantifiable, and the benefit most likely low.
I don't think she is likely to have any information worth anything, though.

It's best addressed as a moral question rather than as a risk/benefit assessment imo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think the risk (if bringing her back) is unquantifiable, and the benefit most likely low.
> I don't think she is likely to have any information worth anything, though.
> 
> It's best addressed as a moral question rather than as a risk/benefit assessment imo.


Yep. If she comes back, she is charged and goes to prison for a spell. Not because she is a risk but because she joined IS. We're into wild speculation then based on fuck all really as to what she'll be like in a few years' time.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> She certainly was cunning and willing to break the law.  Of course, I can't know whether she still is, but, generally with use historical data to predict future risk.
> 
> I'm not arguing against that. I'm agreeing with it, but going further.



No offence mon, but I'm not sure hiding a letter from your parents, nicking your sisters passport and getting on a plane would be considered to be the cunning feats you see them as by everyone.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think the risk (if bringing her back) is unquantifiable, and the benefit most likely low.
> I don't think she is likely to have any information worth anything, though.
> 
> It's best addressed as a moral question rather than as a risk/benefit assessment imo.



Prudent to err on the side of caution where it's hard to assess risk. 

If it becomes a moral question, then that makes the use of the s.40 a punitive measure, which, as has already been recognised, is even more worrying.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think the risk (if bringing her back) is unquantifiable, and the benefit most likely low.
> I don't think she is likely to have any information worth anything, though.
> 
> It's best addressed as a moral question rather than as a risk/benefit assessment imo.



You obviously don't work in HE. There's a shit load of grant money for the sociologist that gets her to fill out a multiple choice informed consent document.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> If it becomes a moral question, then that makes the use of the s.40 a punitive measure, which, as has already been recognised, is even more worrying.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> No offence mon, but I'm not sure hiding a letter from your parents, nicking your sisters passport and getting on a plane would be considered to be the cunning feats you see them as by everyone.



She was a 15 year old who was already on the state's radar, but managed to plan and execute an unlawful emigration.  And she's survived four years in one of the most dangerous places in the world. Let's not pretend she's utterly useless.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Prudent to err on the side of caution where it's hard to assess risk.
> 
> If it becomes a moral question, then that makes the use of the s.40 a punitive measure, which, as has already been recognised, is even more worrying.


Given that she would be arrested and charged and taken into custody without ever getting past the airport, what risk is there to assess? She wouldn't get bail so that's a few months awaiting trial, and I would suggest that her chance of an acquittal would have to be close to zero, so she'd be facing several years in jail, again, never having seen freedom past the airport on arriving home. Plenty of time to assess risks, no?

And extending that out to all the others in her situation, surely much the same applies, unless they somehow manage to smuggle themselves in without the authorities noticing, which is beyond the control of the risk-assessors anyway.

An expensive process, no doubt, but worth the expense. The current policy of attempting to use a technicality against her and others and in the process exposing an attitude of complete contempt towards many thousands of British citizens has potentially enormous costs. So the right thing to do and also the right thing to do. The right thing to do morally is normally the right thing to do outcome-wise.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> She was a 15 year old who was already on the state's radar, but managed to plan and execute an unlawful emigration.  And she's survived four years in one of the most dangerous places in the world. Let's not pretend she's utterly useless.



The state gave her a letter to give to her parents. They didn't put a tracking device on her. She didn't disguise herself as a washerwoman and smuggle herself out of a castle in a basket of fruit. 

As for surviving in one of the most dangerous places in the world, it's been pointed out several times she went there to and was expected to be in the home, having children, away from the fighting. The journalist who interviewed her in his piece says she was never left on her own. She was protected by others, by all accounts. 

No one is pretending she's useless. But your projection that she is "cunning" is a projection.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Given that she would be arrested and charged and taken into custody without ever getting past the airport, what risk is there to assess? She wouldn't get bail so that's a few months awaiting trial, and I would suggest that her chance of an acquittal would have to be close to zero, so she'd be facing several years in jail, again, never having seen freedom past the airport on arriving home. Plenty of time to assess risks, no?
> 
> And extending that out to all the others in her situation, surely much the same applies, unless they somehow manage to smuggle themselves in without the authorities noticing, which is beyond the control of the risk-assessors anyway.



She could be out in not much more than 18 months. And potentially radicalising others inside, in the mutterings.  The fact that it might be possible to assess that risk risk in the meantime doesn't mean it can be effectively managed on release.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> The state gave her a letter to give to her parents. They didn't put a tracking device on her. She didn't disguise herself as a washerwoman and smuggle herself out of a castle in a basket of fruit.
> 
> As for surviving in one of the most dangerous places in the world, it's been pointed out several times she went there to and was expected to be in the home, having children, away from the fighting. The journalist who interviewed her in his piece says she was never left on her own. She was protected by others, by all accounts.
> 
> No one is pretending she's useless. But your projection that she is "cunning" is a projection.



We can agree to disagree, but I'd say she's got enough abbot her to pull off some sort of terrorist attack, if so minded.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> We can agree to disagree, but I'd say she's got enough abbot her to pull off some sort of terrorist attack, of so minded.



Well, so have I and so have you.  If so minded.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> She could be out in not much more than 18 months. And potentially radicalising others inside, in the mutterings.  The fact that it might be possible to assess that risk risk in the meantime doesn't mean it can be effectively managed on release.


Doesn't mean it can't be either. In that, she shares a lot in common with others convicted of violent offences (I consider joining IS to be a violent offence, regardless of her actual actions in Syria). There is a danger of overstating the case here, and I say this as someone who considers her to be an accessory to attempted genocide.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

8ball said:


> Well, so have I and so have you.  If so minded.



Yes, but we haven't demonstrated a significant ideological and practical commitment to a murderous regime!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> We can agree to disagree, but I'd say she's got enough abbot her to pull off some sort of terrorist attack, of so minded.



Fine, just so long as you're clear that what I'm saying is you don't know anything that would indicate that - you just feel it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Doesn't mean it can't be either. In that, she shares a lot in common with others convicted of violent offences (I consider joining IS to be a violent offence, regardless of her actual actions in Syria). There is a danger of overstating the case here, and I say this as someone who considers her to be an accessory to attempted genocide.



Yeah, these's plenty of others I'd rather not be here, too.


----------



## Athos (Feb 22, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Fine, just so long as you're clear that what I'm saying is you don't know anything that would indicate that - you just feel it.



No, I think it's indicated by her past conduct; you disagree.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yeah, these's plenty of others I'd rather not be here, too.



About 55 million of them in my case.  Fortunately I'm not Home Secretary..


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 22, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yeah, these's plenty of others I'd rather not be here, too.


But that's the nub of it. This is more about us as a society than it is her, really. While I take butchers' point about the danger of cultural imperialist thinking, if she comes here or it is arranged for her to come here, how she is treated will be a direct reflection of British society. I would want her to face consequences for what she has done and at the same time to be treated humanely. Given a chance of redemption, and also made to face up to her crimes. British society comes up very short very often in this kind of highly publicised case. imo the killers of James Bulger are a case in point - the way they were treated reflects very badly on the UK justice system. Probably not a popular pov, but there it is - sometimes, too often, populist responses win the day.

The tory law and order narrative attempts to divorce crime from the social conditions that produce it, putting it down solely to the fact that the criminals are bad people. Without taking away the notion of agency, a middle path is possible there - we are both products of our environment and responsible for our actions. A humane society recognises both of these things, and also recognises the potential for change and, horrible word but I can't think of a better one at the moment, rehabilitation. tbh she may well be a more promising case for rehabilitation than most people who end up in prison - there are plenty of examples of youthful terrorist-types who renounce violence later in life.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is more about us as a society than it is her, really.



That's where I am with this at the moment.  Though Javid's actions have played a part in that.
I don't think we amount to much as a society at this time, though.  We're just underlining IS's point about our hypocrisy and decadence.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> That's where I am with this at the moment.  Though Javid's actions have played a part in that.
> I don't think we amount to much as a society at this time, though.  We're just underlining IS's point about our hypocrisy and decadence.


Appalling own-goal (as well as being morally reprehensible - the two often go together). It's an opening, a way in. 

_You think you belong. They don't. They will never think you belong. See that Javid. He's not a real Muslim - and that's what they want you to become. They want you to renounce your faith. They won't ever accept you or your faith. There is no place for you here. _


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 23, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, I think it's indicated by her past conduct; you disagree.



Her past conduct is not evidence of cunning. Your belief that she is cunning stems from your projection.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 23, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Her past conduct is not evidence of cunning. Your belief that she is cunning stems from your projection.



The stuff she has been coming out with suggests anything but cunning.
That said, I don't think you need to be cunning to be dangerous.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 23, 2019)

8ball said:


> The stuff she has been coming out with suggests anything but cunning.
> That said, I don't think you need to be cunning to be dangerous.



Definitely. Wasn't saying she isn't dangerous. Might even be cunning. I really doubt it though.


----------



## IC3D (Feb 23, 2019)

I think it's as justifiable to bring her back and let her get on with her life as much as it is to push her off the top of a tall building live on the 6 o'clock news. I'd say it's a good 50/50 split on the public vote. I don't think there is much consensus on British values.


----------



## Athos (Feb 23, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Her past conduct is not evidence of cunning. Your belief that she is cunning stems from your projection.



As I've said, we can agree to disagree about that.


----------



## Athos (Feb 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that's the nub of it. This is more about us as a society than it is her, really. While I take butchers' point about the danger of cultural imperialist thinking, if she comes here or it is arranged for her to come here, how she is treated will be a direct reflection of British society. I would want her to face consequences for what she has done and at the same time to be treated humanely. Given a chance of redemption, and also made to face up to her crimes. British society comes up very short very often in this kind of highly publicised case. imo the killers of James Bulger are a case in point - the way they were treated reflects very badly on the UK justice system. Probably not a popular pov, but there it is - sometimes, too often, populist responses win the day.
> 
> The tory law and order narrative attempts to divorce crime from the social conditions that produce it, putting it down solely to the fact that the criminals are bad people. Without taking away the notion of agency, a middle path is possible there - we are both products of our environment and responsible for our actions. A humane society recognises both of these things, and also recognises the potential for change and, horrible word but I can't think of a better one at the moment, rehabilitation. tbh she may well be a more promising case for rehabilitation than most people who end up in prison - there are plenty of examples of youthful terrorist-types who renounce violence later in life.



As I've  said, these's a difference between the endpoint and the process to get there.

I've no desire for her to return.  I'm not particularly interested in affording her an opportunity for redemption/reform (notwithstanding that I recognise the causes of her conduct are complex), because any sympathy I feel for her is outweighed by then assessment of the risk, and my contempt for her ideology.

But I do have some real issues with the process by which she's been excluded.  In particular, the fact it's an own goal; that it reflects a divisive, two-tier citizenship for those born here; and, the creeping shift of power from the courts to politicians (who use it for their own political agendas).

For me, the least bad (but in no way perfect) outcome would have been that the Home Secretary hadn't stripped her of her citizenship, but that she'd been tried and imprisoned locally, such that she didn't return to the UK.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> _You think you belong. They don't. They will never think you belong. See that Javid. He's not a real Muslim - and that's what they want you to become. They want you to renounce your faith. They won't ever accept you or your faith. There is no place for you here. _


I think you overplay this enormously and that those who’d be radicalised to the extent that they travel to join IS would do so and have done So anyway. We’re also talking about an extremely low number of these fuckers too. About 800 over 8 years. If the Guardian figure is correct and 400 have returned, some of these would likely have been passed to other states, some imprisoned and some put through programs. It’s not clear if the 150 who’ve had their citizenships revoked are part of that 400 but I’d assume so given that around 200-300 of the total are estimated to have been killed and others will either remain in Syria, be missing (having been dealt with extrajudicially) or have decamped to other countries of their own accord.

We’re taking about a tiny number of people who are actually radicalised enough to join IS or even commit terror actions here. Your assertion that the way returning fighters are treated has a recruiting effect on others who may be radicalised is as unprovable as mine that harsh treatment of them would act as a deterrent.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> But that's the nub of it. This is more about us as a society than it is her, really. While I take butchers' point about the danger of cultural imperialist thinking, if she comes here or it is arranged for her to come here, how she is treated will be a direct reflection of British society. I would want her to face consequences for what she has done and at the same time to be treated humanely. Given a chance of redemption, and also made to face up to her crimes. British society comes up very short very often in this kind of highly publicised case.



Only in your view and those of other handwringing lefties. Attempting to reintegrate these slugs says nothing about British society that I want to hear.

Your subsequent analysis of the Bulger killers is, quite frankly, bizarre.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 23, 2019)

I am tending to the let her back and then try her for her crimes here, point of view. 

Anyhow she must be the tip of the iceberg, I bet there were lots of Brits out there, and I don't see a coherent plan to deal with them consistently.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 23, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Only in your view and those of other handwringing lefties. Attempting to reintegrate these slugs says nothing about British society that I want to hear.
> 
> Your subsequent analysis of the Bulger killers is, quite frankly, bizarre.



I don't want to over-labour this, but Javid's actions do provide one more piece of evidence of the UK state's attitude towards immigrants and the children of immigrants. For someone already feeling disaffected, it's further confirmation that they're right. Javid's posturing on this panders to the far right, and no good comes from that.

As for the idea that it is handwringing to seek to face up to the challenge posed by transgressors in society, that's simply laughable. You present no alternative plan, aside I guess from 'lock her up and throw away the key', which isn't going to happen. So the alternative - not attempting to reintegrate people like Begum when the time comes - well what is it? There isn't one. Well done for not wanting to face up to difficult problems, and criticising those who attempt to do so.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't want to over-labour this, but Javid's actions do provide one more piece of evidence of the UK state's attitude towards immigrants and the children of immigrants.


Only insofar as dual nationality provides a mechanism to deal with them if they join genocidal organisations that isn't available when dealing with sole nationals. 


> You present no alternative plan, aside I guess from 'lock her up and throw away the key', which isn't going to happen. So the alternative - not attempting to reintegrate people like Begum when the time comes - well what is it?


Of course I've provided an alternative. I've made it very clear. Leave her where she is or let the Syrians or Iraqis deal with her.


----------



## RubyBlue (Feb 23, 2019)

Second Briton says he wants to be allowed back to UK from Syria

I’m waiting for the Home Secretary’s decision on Jihadi Jack who holds duel citizenship with Canada.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 23, 2019)

RubyBlue said:


> Second Briton says he wants to be allowed back to UK from Syria
> 
> I’m waiting for the Home Secretary’s decision on Jihadi Jack who holds duel citizenship with Canada.



It will be a race to beat Canada in revoking citizenship, I think.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 23, 2019)

RubyBlue said:


> Second Briton says he wants to be allowed back to UK from Syria
> 
> I’m waiting for the Home Secretary’s decision on Jihadi Jack who holds duel citizenship with Canada.



Thread here - Jihadi Jack wants to come back because he misses Dr Who


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 23, 2019)

RubyBlue said:


> Second Briton says he wants to be allowed back to UK from Syria
> 
> I’m waiting for the Home Secretary’s decision on Jihadi Jack who holds duel citizenship with Canada.



There are articles from a few years back about him but no decision as yet despite his parents putting in a fairly constant campaign during that time. He is also in prison so coming g home is just as complicated. Let's see how the HS finally decides to play this though yes.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't want to over-labour this, but Javid's actions do provide one more piece of evidence of the UK state's attitude towards immigrants and the children of immigrants. For someone already feeling disaffected, it's further confirmation that they're right. Javid's posturing on this panders to the far right, and no good comes from that.



Possibly not what you meant but it panders to isis too, isis will have messages about Muslims not being proper citizens in the west.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2019)

Such disgusting depravity 





> Even the term “ISIS brides” popularized in the media reduces the women merely to the fact of their marriage. While the women married to ISIS fighters were part of a system that abused all women, evidence suggests they used their relative power over Yazidi women to torture them further.





> The ISIS pamphlet “Questions and Answers on Taking Captives and Slaves” gave a free pass to soldiers for the raping, selling, buying, or gifting of Yazidi women and children, “for they are merely property.”





> Ibrahim said the torture of Yazidi women was often psychological, and the “ISIS wives” were “incredibly cruel” in this regard. One of the younger Yazidi survivors told Ibrahim that a woman had “forbidden” her from crying, although the Yazidi woman’s entire family had been massacred by ISIS fighters. Others spoke about how women who were part of ISIS forced them to recite the Qur’an and denounce their own religion.
> 
> “In some cases, [the wives] were the ones who made women shower and put on clean clothes and makeup before they were brought to the men to be raped,” Ibrahim said via email from Washington, DC. “They were absolutely complicit, and they knew very well what they were doing.”
> 
> Ibrahim agreed that every individual case was unique and needed investigation to show the truth. “But we know how bad the women were, and we have evidence in some cases.”




https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/nishitajha/isis-yazidi-shamima-begum-hoda-muthana


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2019)

And a good point from that article:



> Ibrahim said it was difficult to attribute calculated decisions like the ones Begum had made “to a lack of maturity.”
> 
> “Shamima would continue to be part of ISIS her whole life if they could manage to maintain territory,” Ibrahim said. Women who joined ISIS, Ibrahim said, “are not remorseful, and they do not believe they were wrong. If ISIS had not lost on the battlefield, the ISIS practice of buying, selling, and raping women would never have stopped. If you saw a human head in a garbage bin, slave markets, and the genocide of a people, would you stay with the ISIS caliphate and only leave once they lost the war? It is clear that since the caliphate is not there anymore, she needs a new place.”


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 23, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Possibly not what you meant but it panders to isis too, isis will have messages about Muslims not being proper citizens in the west.


Yes it does. Not a reason in and of itself not to do it, but yet another layer to add to the depth of the stupidity of the action.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 23, 2019)

editor said:


> Such disgusting depravity
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Though we don’t know that she specifically is guilty of this.


----------



## editor (Feb 23, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Though we don’t know that she specifically is guilty of this.


But she would have known _all about these practice_s before she used her resourcefulness to join the ISIS gang. She said she watched the videos and liked what she saw.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 23, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes it does. Not a reason in and of itself not to do it, but yet another layer to add to the depth of the stupidity of the action.


Sorry. If you take up arms against a nation of which you are a citizen, provide support to those who do, or support rape and genocide in the name of any other “state” (pseudo or otherwise), if it can be legally achieved, you should lose the citizenship of the first state. This shouldn’t even be controversial.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 23, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry. If you take up arms against a nation of which you are a citizen, provide support to those who do, or support rape and genocide in the name of any other “state” (pseudo or otherwise), if it can be legally achieved, you should lose the citizenship of the first state. This shouldn’t even be controversial.


You don't seem able to see past your nose on this particular point. As Lenin never said, the ends do not always justify the means.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 25, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't seem able to see past your nose on this particular point. As Lenin never said, the ends do not always justify the means.


Jacob Rees-Mogg agrees with you.

Another bell clanging on about 2-tier citizenship.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 25, 2019)

Looks like the publicity training is starting to pay-off.

Now she wants to ...


> ... help encourage other young British people to think before they make life-changing decisions like this and not to make the same mistake as me.


We don't need government deradicalisation programs. Begum's PR mob are right on this with their super-duper "almost overnight, folks!" express deradicalisation scheme.

From being ok with the beheadings and slavery of infidels, to wanting to help us not to make her mistakes, in about a week! 

Astonishingly successful stuff!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 25, 2019)

The rabid express again... 

Private Eye doing it's shit thing too


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Feb 25, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Looks like the publicity training is starting to pay-off.
> 
> Now she wants to ...



She might know the words now but clearly not the tune. More training needed but yes the fact she's got through an interview without more approving comments about the Manchester bombings is a good start.

I'd also suggest she needs to add something on race/Muslim/healing/peace/humanity etc lines.  It doesn't matter if it makes any sense. As we know there is a latent support for this line if she can successfully tap into it.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 25, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Private Eye doing it's shit thing too
> 
> View attachment 162931


Some much better ones than those flying around at the moment.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 25, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> The rabid express again...


What's that got to do with anything?

It's a video of JRM talking on LBC (probably agreeing with you, as it happens).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Jacob Rees-Mogg agrees with you.
> 
> Another bell clanging on about 2-tier citizenship.


Enoch Powell agreed with me about nuclear weapons. So the fuck what?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 25, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Enoch Powell agreed with me about nuclear weapons. So the fuck what?


Just pointing out that both you_ and him_, are wrong.


----------



## gentlegreen (Feb 25, 2019)

She's changed her tune slightly.

'I want to inspire British girls not to make the same mistakes': Jihadi bride Shamima Begum NOW insists she is truly sorry as she pleads for a second chance to return home to the UK from her tent in a squalid refugee camp



> The ‘Daeshi’ section of the Al-Hawl refugee camp is a strange and forbidding place.
> 
> Displaced jihadi wives, covered head to toe by long black garments, wander amid the billowing white tents they call home, clutching knock-off designer handbags.
> 
> ...


----------



## LDC (Feb 25, 2019)




----------



## MickiQ (Feb 25, 2019)

I think it is slowly dawning on her how deep the shit she is in actually is and at the moment her future likely consists of either the rest of her life in these squalid conditions or death via casual violence at some point in the not too distant future.
Her only hope of avoiding her fate is to play the "First World Privilege" card, I wonder if the irony is lost on her?
Her expectations still seem wildly optimistic, she seems unwilling to accept that the best thing she could do for her child is to ask for him to go back to the UK without her and still seems to have the bizarre
fantasy that there is some kind of future for them and her husband as a happy family with all forgiven.
Whilst I still hold to my view that bringing her back her to face punishment is the correct thing to do, I think allowing her to keep her child or have any contact with the father ever again is out of the question. Probably the best thing to do for the baby is for it to be adopted into a suitably mixed-race family (the father is white I believe) and be told his parents are dead.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Feb 25, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> I think it is slowly dawning on her how deep the shit she is in actually is and at the moment her future likely consists of either the rest of her life in these squalid conditions or death via casual violence at some point in the not too distant future.
> Her only hope of avoiding her fate is to play the "First World Privilege" card, I wonder if the irony is lost on her?
> Her expectations still seem wildly optimistic, she seems unwilling to accept that the best thing she could do for her child is to ask for him to go back to the UK without her and still seems to have the bizarre
> fantasy that there is some kind of future for them and her husband as a happy family with all forgiven.
> Whilst I still hold to my view that bringing her back her to face punishment is the correct thing to do, I think allowing her to keep her child or have any contact with the father ever again is out of the question. Probably the best thing to do for the baby is for it to be adopted into a suitably mixed-race family (the father is white I believe) and be told his parents are dead.


On your last point, I'd expect a kinship  assessment for wider family to take the parenting roles would be the first thing considered, but at this moment it's purely hypothetical. Informing the child that parents are dead: absolutely not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 25, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Just pointing out that both you_ and him_, are wrong.


Were you? I thought you were pointing out that Rees-Mogg agrees with something I said, like that puts us on the same 'side' or something. It no more does that than Powell's opposition to nuclear weapons put him on the same 'side' as me.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 25, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I thought you were pointing out that Rees-Mogg agrees with something I said, like that puts us on the same 'side' or something.


I was doing that as well.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 25, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Were you? I thought you were pointing out that Rees-Mogg agrees with something I said, like that puts us on the same 'side' or something. It no more does that than Powell's opposition to nuclear weapons put him on the same 'side' as me.



I don't know why you bother with that windup to be honest. All of this is akin to you pointing out that he shares views on this with the likes of Tommy Robinson and EDL types.


----------



## Athos (Feb 25, 2019)

Or Javid.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 25, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Begum's PR mob



Who is this?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Who is this?


Whoever's telling her what to say to journalists.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't know why you bother with that windup to be honest.


Same reason you do, probably.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2019)

Athos said:


> Or Javid.


----------



## Idris2002 (Feb 26, 2019)

Here, under the Defense of the Realm Act, didn't the government of the day have the power to confine persons considered _non grata _to particular towns and cities (like Brezhnev did with Sakharov)? 

Does that bit of legislation still have force today? Either way, would it be relevant to this case?


----------



## bemused (Feb 26, 2019)

Given she is now stateless what would happen if she turns up at a UK port?


----------



## A380 (Feb 27, 2019)

bemused said:


> Given she is now stateless what would happen if she turns up at a UK port?


Be detained by border force for the passport offence and then arrested by old bill on suspicion  terrorism, CPI terrorism. Probly put on an extended detention clock. If there is evidence- probably would be- charged and remanded for trial. If convicted locked up. Issues of British citizenship to be argued about in parallel. Can’t see ‘ The Saj’ winning that one.

So she’d be banged up for probably 2 to 10 years then released here would be my media sourced wild guess.


----------



## LDC (Feb 27, 2019)

bemused said:


> Given she is now stateless what would happen if she turns up at a UK port?



Quite a big 'if' given she'd have to have crossed at least one border and then managed to get a ticket a plane somewhere all without a passport or any travel documents. 

I'd think that the only way she'll be getting to a UK border would be with some assistance from the British State, which would entail them having a plan for her arrival.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 27, 2019)

bemused said:


> Given she is now stateless what would happen if she turns up at a UK port?


If she turns up here and is still stateless then we would have to admit her, since we have nowhere to deport her too but getting here would be a problem without a passport since I can't imagine her getting on a plane without one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> If she turns up here and is still stateless then we would have to admit her, since we have nowhere to deport her too but getting here would be a problem without a passport since I can't imagine her getting on a plane without one.


slow boat to chichester


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

MickiQ said:


> If she turns up here and is still stateless then we would have to admit her, since we have nowhere to deport her too but getting here would be a problem without a passport since I can't imagine her getting on a plane without one.



Has her sister's expired then?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

You know you've cracked the fame thing when images of you are used as targets at shooting ranges!


----------



## miss direct (Feb 27, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Quite a big 'if' given she'd have to have crossed at least one border and then managed to get a ticket a plane somewhere all without a passport or any travel documents.
> 
> I'd think that the only way she'll be getting to a UK border would be with some assistance from the British State, which would entail them having a plan for her arrival.



There’s no consulate facilities in Syria so she’d need to come to Turkey. Not as easy to get back into Turkey as it used to be. Then she’d need to get to Ankara, to the embassy or consulate. They don’t even let you in without an appointment, and are very clear on what they can and can’t help you with. Where is her passport, anyway?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

miss direct said:


> . Where is her passport, anyway?



Either back in Bethnal Green or she never had one in the first place.


----------



## Celyn (Feb 27, 2019)

She didn't have one. Purloined passport of her sister when she set off on her fun adventures.

Edit - or so I read somewhere.


----------



## miss direct (Feb 27, 2019)

Well, that's reassuring. Isn't there eye recognition thing now, or is that only when you come into the UK (as opposed to leaving)?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

miss direct said:


> Well, that's reassuring. Isn't there eye recognition thing now, or is that only when you come into the UK (as opposed to leaving)?



There are a lot more checks coming into the UK.  Its pretty cursory when flying out.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Her having or not having a passport is neither here nor there. If she did have one it would’ve been cancelled when she lost her citizenship anyway.


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 27, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Has her sister's expired then?


Good point but I suspect posting it to Syria has a good chance of it getting lost


----------



## miss direct (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Her having or not having a passport is neither here nor there. If she did have one it would’ve been cancelled when she lost her citizenship anyway.


So she has to get across a border that now has a wall along it Turkey finishes construction of 764-km security wall on Syria border - somehow get some Turkish money - get to Ankara - get to the consulate - try to get in - go through some sort of legal process to get an emergency passport/get her citizenship reinstated (probably get a lawyer - I think she has one in the UK - who's paying for that?) - get a flight back (who's paying for that?) 

Here in Turkey we saw so many people making their way to join ISIS/do charity work/help with medical supplies/document what was going on. Didn't imagine they'd want to come back in the opposite direction.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Her having or not having a passport is neither here nor there. If she did have one it would’ve been cancelled when she lost her citizenship anyway.



Her sisters UK passport was cancelled by the Passport Office when it became clear that it had been stolen - not least because even the Home Office grasped that IS having possession of a valid UK passport that, apparently, any old character could use to get on a flight was a bad idea.

Whether Begum herself had a passport I can't recall, but if she had, it would have been cancelled at the same time.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

miss direct said:


> Didn't imagine they'd want to come back in the opposite direction.


Neither did they.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Whoever's telling her what to say to journalists.



Which would be who? The other people in the camp? Who forms this 'PR team' you refer to?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Which would be who? The other people in the camp? Who forms this 'PR team' you refer to?



I don’t know who they are, but she has very very obviously taken instruction on what to say to the media since her first interview. 

So, them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Which would be who? The other people in the camp? Who forms this 'PR team' you refer to?


I would guess she's probably spoken to her family's lawyer by now. Whatever you think of him, he seems pretty capable.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

Or being coached by the press shitbags themselves.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You know you've cracked the fame thing when images of you are used as targets at shooting ranges!



What a bunch of cunts.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> What a bunch of cunts.


I dunno. They also have targets of Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler, and Justin Bieber. Seems like she’s in good company.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> What a bunch of cunts.



bantz.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I dunno. They also have targets of Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler, and Justin Bieber. Seems like she’s in good company.


wot no 'sir' cliff richard? for shame!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don’t know who they are, but she has very very obviously taken instruction on what to say to the media since her first interview.
> 
> So, them.



You think she was _coached _for the interview? The one where she talked about not being phased by severed heads? 



littlebabyjesus said:


> I would guess she's probably spoken to her family's lawyer by now. Whatever you think of him, he seems pretty capable.



I see no evidence of this. In any case if she has managed to speak to him on the phone (from a refugee camp) I don't think that constitutes a PR team. 



Teaboy said:


> Or being coached by the press shitbags themselves.



Coached for what? Coached to produce a greater volume of clickbait and rage shares?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You think she was _coached _for the interview? The one where she talked about not being phased by severed heads?


 

No silly. After that.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> wot no 'sir' cliff richard? for shame!


Bono.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I dunno. They also have targets of Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler, and Justin Bieber. Seems like she’s in good company.



Those other three have committed far greater crimes.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You think she was _coached _for the interview? The one where she talked about not being phased by severed heads?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The first interview was very different to subsequent ones, some of the language she used in subsequent interviews was different odd and deliberate.  She's definitely been given advice, by whom I don't know.  Whether it was for her good is another matter.

ETA: It doesn't seem that far fetched to believe the press is capable of putting words into the mouth of an impressionable person, especially when they are looking for an angle or a scoop.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Those other three have committed far greater crimes.


Well Bieber has.


----------



## Dillinger4 (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No silly. After that.



I also thought so. There was a change in tone, it became more measured. If there wasn't PR coaching there was definitely an awareness of how she was being perceived in Britain. Considering her initial statements I'm not sure she developed that awareness by herself.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No silly. After that.



Ahhhh. In that case.. I still don't think she has anyone advising her on what to say. Don't be daft. She might have reflected on the severed heads comment and thought "maybe I won't say that again". She ain't getting coached on how to speak to the media. 



Teaboy said:


> The first interview was very different to subsequent ones, some of the language she used in subsequent interviews was different odd and deliberate.  She's definitely been given advice, by whom I don't know.  Whether it was for her good is another matter.
> 
> ETA: It doesn't seem that far fetched to believe the press is capable of putting words into the mouth of an impressionable person, especially when they are looking for an angle or a scoop.



Yeah, that's not far fetched. But at the same time, I think you're speculating a bit to say that her language and speech were radically different to be honest.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well Bieber has.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

Putting the face of any living person on a shooting target, no matter how repulsive they may be, is pretty disturbing and doesn't reflect well on the people who do it or the people who take pleasure in shooting at them.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ahhhh. In that case.. I still don't think she has anyone advising her on what to say. Don't be daft. She might have reflected on the severed heads comment and thought "maybe I won't say that again". She ain't getting coached on how to speak to the media.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's not far fetched. But at the same time, I think you're speculating a bit to say that her language and speech were radically different to be honest.


The change in her attitude and speech was huge and happened in about a week. Someone has, without a doubt, coached her.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah, that's not far fetched. But at the same time, I think you're speculating a bit to say that her language and speech were radically different to be honest.



Blimey.

OK, whatever.  I think its blatantly obvious, I'm amazed that anyone who has actually watched them would think otherwise.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 27, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Putting the face of any living person on a shooting target, no matter how repulsive they may be, is pretty disturbing and doesn't reflect well on the people who do it or the people who take pleasure in shooting at them.



I would agree with that, with the exception of politicians from around the world.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The change in her attitude and speech was huge and happened in about a week. Someone has, without a doubt, coached her.



You are ridiculous.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

The shooting range wot dun it said: "Our targets provide some fantastic reactions and conversations... bringing out the inner child in all," 

Give your inner-child a gun today


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Putting the face of any living person on a shooting target, no matter how repulsive they may be, is pretty disturbing and doesn't reflect well on the people who do it or the people who take pleasure in shooting at them.


Haha! Put half the current British politicians faces on targets here and you’d have Urbs queuing up to pull the trigger. Put an Isis slugbag up and it’s distasteful!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Blimey.
> 
> OK, whatever.  I think its blatantly obvious, I'm amazed that anyone who has actually watched them would think otherwise.



I think when you're looking for things, they often seem obvious.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You are ridiculous.


And as I’ve stated before, you have the critical faculties of a yoghurt.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Blimey.
> 
> OK, whatever.  I think its blatantly obvious, I'm amazed that anyone who has actually watched them would think otherwise.


I don’t think our frog friend has seen them.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Haha! Put half the current British politicians faces on targets here and you’d have Urbs queuing up to pull the trigger. Put an Isis slugbag up and it’s distasteful!



gunz=srsbzns; no lolzpics hth hnd blud


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> I would agree with that, with the exception of politicians from around the world.


Politicians - fair game.

Rape and genocide enablers - bad taste.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think when you're looking for things, they often seem obvious.



Or when you don't want to see things you never will.  Just listen to some of the words she uses, they are very specific and chosen.

The press are out to get interviews, presumably they are encouraging her to participate in the interviews (immediately after giving birth) as a means of enabling her return to the UK, otherwise why would she bother?  

Of course the reality is the press are just out there to get a story and whipping up a righteous froth back home is their main aim.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Or when you don't want to see things you never will.  Just listen to some of the words she uses, they are very specific and chosen.



Can you give an example? 




Teaboy said:


> The press are out to get interviews, presumably they are encouraging her to participate in the interviews (immediately after giving birth) as a means of enabling her return to the UK, otherwise why would she bother?
> 
> Of course the reality is the press are just out there to get a story and whipping up a righteous froth back home is their main aim.



I don't disagree with that but then they would be coaching her to say outrageous stuff that generates more clickbait wouldn't they?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Politicians - fair game.
> 
> Rape and genocide enablers - bad taste.



 

Too easy sometimes.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 27, 2019)

Don't see how putting faces on range targets is any better or worse than making effigies and destroying them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2019)

maybe there's a market for this sort of thing for dartboards that people are missing out on


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Don't see how putting faces on range targets is any better or worse than making effigies and destroying them.



I feel pretty much the same for effirgy twats as I do about these bellends at the shooting range, tbf. See also; flag burners.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Can you give an example?



I can't be bothered to go back over them line for line, because as I say its really obvious.  However if you want to start try the first interview where she is all about reminiscing about the good old days and how she would still be there if it was like it used to be.  Then in subsequent interviews she suddenly switches to how she feels she is British and legalistic language about making someone stateless.

Would you at least agree that she is getting feedback on how it is going down back in the UK?


----------



## maomao (Feb 27, 2019)

NoXion said:


> Don't see how putting faces on range targets is any better or worse than making effigies and destroying them.


Or posting on a website originally famous for a game where you could beat up (in noughties java style) various celebrities and politicians.


----------



## rekil (Feb 27, 2019)

Ash Sarkar, who has, like the rest of novara, studiously ignored* the carnage in Syria for years and years, says she's "close to tears" over an ISIS person's image on a target. jfc.  

*unless the championing of the Assadist C***s W********n counts,


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

maomao said:


> Or posting on a website originally famous for a game where you could beat up (in noughties java style) various celebrities and politicians.



Not sure you can make much of a comparison between giving someone a slap and shooting someone in the face.

Anyway for very obvious reasons guns are always an emotive issue and professionals (such as rifle range owners) should probably engage brain.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 27, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Not sure you can make much of a comparison between giving someone a slap and shooting someone in the face.



Pretending to give someone a slap and pretending to shoot someone in the face.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 27, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I can't be bothered to go back over them line for line, because as I say its really obvious.  However if you want to start try the first interview where she is all about reminiscing about the good old days and how she would still be there if it was like it used to be.  Then in subsequent interviews she suddenly switches to how she feels she is British and legalistic language about making someone stateless.
> 
> Would you at least agree that she is getting feedback on how it is going down back in the UK?



No. I don't know how to make this any clearer - I'm not interested in speculating on things I can't know.

I can be certain that she's being shown reaction to the interviews by the journalists. Which could have an impact on what she says. Beyond that, I really don't know. I don't know much about the conditions she's living in, who is around her etc.

E2A: and in relation to this discussion I don't see any evidence that she is being coached by a "PR team" which was the ridiculous comment that sparked all this discussion.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Pretending to give someone a slap and pretending to shoot someone in the face.



Yes.


----------



## JimW (Feb 27, 2019)

Anyone who goes to that club should be on the same list she is, bunch of wrong-uns.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> E2A: and in relation to this discussion I don't see any evidence that she is being coached by a "PR team" which was the ridiculous comment that sparked all this discussion.


I think I said 'PR mob'. But you've decided to read that as me suggesting she's got Publicis on side. That's because you're an idiot. Anyone who has been following this will be in no doubt that she's received instruction between her first interview and subsequent ones. You are the only person who I've seen say otherwise. That instruction may have come from an individual in the camp, multiple people, journalists, possibly some kind of legal adviser ...

They are the 'PR mob' to whom I was referring. I wasn't saying she's got Max Clifford on the case (although that would be funny).


----------



## NoXion (Feb 27, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I feel pretty much the same for effirgy twats as I do about these bellends at the shooting range, tbf. See also; flag burners.



I really don't see any reason to get worked up about an entirely symbolic act directed at people who often deserve a far worse fate.


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> ... I wasn't saying she's got Max Clifford on the case (although that would be funny).



_To improve my public image I have hired the services of the reanimated corpse of sex offender Max Clifford._


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

NoXion said:


> I really don't see any reason to get worked up about an entirely symbolic act directed at people who often deserve a far worse fate.



Who's getting worked up? I think they effigy and flag burners just look like dicks. And am always amazed at how they always seems to have a spare effigy and a Zippo to hand whenever they get the arse-ache about this or that.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

They should run 2 targets down the range, one of her and one of Letts. Whoever shoots her can be immediately accused of racism and/or misogyny.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 27, 2019)

NoXion said:


> I really don't see any reason to get worked up about an entirely symbolic act directed at people who often deserve a far worse fate.



Hold on. No one here is getting worked up...you are simply going along with the hype and the hyberbole of the thread's grade A troll who has excited himself into a salivating frenzy at the thought of winding others up and saying provocative things.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 27, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Hold on. No one here is getting worked up...you are simply going along with the hype and the hyberhole of the thread's grade A troll who has excited himself into a salivating frenzy at the thought of winding others up and saying provocative things.



I dunno about anyone else, but I certainly don't call people twats unless I have some strong feelings about them one way or the other. Maybe I'm just odd like that.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> ...you are simply going along with the hype and the hyberhole of the thread's grade A troll ...


Can we leave my hyberhole out of this?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 27, 2019)

But grade A, that's a good mark.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> But grade A, that's a good mark.


Provocative was better. Apparently that just means pointing out that she's full of shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> They should run 2 targets down the range, one of her and one of Letts. Whoever shoots her can be immediately accused of racism and/or misogyny.


Quentin Letts? You're on


----------



## LDC (Feb 27, 2019)

I think it's an airsoft range btw, maybe people should calm down, it's just weirdos playing with toys.


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 27, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The shooting range wot dun it said: "Our targets provide some fantastic reactions and conversations... bringing out the inner child in all,"
> 
> Give your inner-child a gun today


 Can I suggest that for the next army recruitment byline please?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

NoXion said:


> I dunno about anyone else, but I certainly don't call people twats unless I have some strong feelings about them one way or the other. Maybe I'm just odd like that.



I am very free with my swearing and twats is a neither here nor there term tbf. Fucking scum cunts would be getting mildly irked on my part.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 27, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think it's a airsoft range btw, maybe people should calm down, it's just weirdos playing with toys.



Good lord, have you seen those things? They are all imitations of hardcore hand and machine guns. What sad sacks of shit get their kicks with that dross? Same people who’d get a thrill from some Isis twat being on a target. The circle squares.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Feb 27, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Good lord, have you seen those things? They are all imitations of hardcore hand and machine guns. What sad sacks of shit get their kicks with that dross? Same people who’d get a thrill from some Isis twat being on a target. The circle squares.


I read the article and got to the "airsoft" bit and immediately thought "oh yeah of course this fits entirely".


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What sad sacks of shit get their kicks with that dross?


Always give airsoft and airgun shooters a wide berth. They're all the psychos who aren't allowed shotgun certificates.


----------



## Athos (Feb 27, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Always give... airgun shooters a wide berth.



Rutita1 was right about you! 

Airsofters are sad walts, though. 

You scatter-gunners have the most bell ends, to be fair.


----------



## tim (Feb 27, 2019)

Angela Eagle seems to think the owners of the range have actually managed to smuggle Begum back into the county, and that this is a child welfare issue


> "They shouldn't be using living people as targets - especially as six-year-olds might be playing," she added.



Shooting range criticised for IS bride target


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Athos said:


> Rutita1 was right about you!


Don't encourage her, ffs.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 27, 2019)

_Oh those airsofters...bunch of weirdo nutjobs, not like us more classy gun and shooting enthusiasts. Love their choice of target though. Tip top. Hilarious actually.
_
Fucking hell. The circle squares indeed.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 27, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> _Oh those airsofters...bunch of weirdo nutjobs, not like us more classy gun and shooting enthusiasts. Love their choice of target though. Tip top. Hilarious actually._


----------



## tim (Mar 3, 2019)

Her Dutch husband wants her to go and live with him in Holland.

IS bride 'should live in Holland' - husband


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 3, 2019)

tim said:


> Her Dutch husband wants her to go and live with him in Holland.
> 
> IS bride 'should live in Holland' - husband


Unless brother Javid changes his mind or the appeal is successful, someone's going to have to give her citizenship if she is going to live anywhere. I don't see why the Dutch would take her just because she's had a kid with one of their paedophile nationals who they're going to stick in prison for six years.


----------



## Yossarian (Mar 3, 2019)

tim said:


> Her Dutch husband wants her to go and live with him in Holland.
> 
> IS bride 'should live in Holland' - husband



"Now all I need to do is get Dutch immigration authorities to certify that a marriage to a 15-year-old under the authority of the Islamic State is valid. Better not tell them that Jihadi John was best man."


----------



## kebabking (Mar 3, 2019)

Oh to be a fly on the wall at that Immigration tribunal....


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 3, 2019)

Yossarian said:


> "Now all I need to do is get Dutch immigration authorities to certify that a marriage to a 15-year-old under the authority of the Islamic State is valid.


Hopefully the Dutch authorities will charge him with rape as well.


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 3, 2019)

His contriteness would have been a bit more convincing if it had come before ISIS was defeated not after.
6 years seems a light sentence to me for what he has done, Since most of his compatriots will likely just get shot, he is essentially invoking White or at least First World privilege to claim preferred treatment and throw himself on the mercy of Western society whose values he has supposedly rejected. Why hasn't he choked to death on the irony of it?
As for taking her with him, Introducing to his parents is likely to be very awkward at the least.
Mum Dad, I'd like you to meet Shamima, Our eyes just met over a basket of severed heads and I just knew she was the one.


----------



## Riklet (Mar 3, 2019)

How come these Isis women are being stuck in refugee camps rather than being banged up with the ISIS men? 

I guess because of the kids and the general lack of resources.  No surprise when you hear how they are already organising rules similar to IS' in the camps and intimidating others... Im sure Begum would be on board with that if she wasnt frantically trying to save her own skin.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 3, 2019)

France 24 claims that the separation of isis women from the others in the al-hawl camp was because  they set fire to tents and other stuff of non-isis people - so there may be a bit more to the story than this woman being removed as she was being victimised by isis. This is just a taster of the male ISIS prison uprisings to come.


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 3, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> maybe there's a market for this sort of thing for dartboards that people are missing out on


When the boy was tiny and learning to do weewees in the big toilet I got him a table tennis ball with Wayne Roodey's face printed on it to aim at. 
He never spilt a drop on the seat.


----------



## Athos (Mar 3, 2019)

friedaweed said:


> When the boy was tiny and learning to do weewees in the big toilet I got him a table tennis ball with Wayne Roodey's face printed on it to aim at.
> He never spilt a drop on the seat.



He now has great aim but a Premiership footballer watersports fetish.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 4, 2019)

Riklet said:


> How come these Isis women are being stuck in refugee camps rather than being banged up with the ISIS men?
> .



Depends where they are.  In Iraq,  ISIS women have been banged up or worse. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw20qPUlOtMpw9l_zsRlXYuJ


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Hopefully the Dutch authorities will charge him with rape as well.


Rape of who?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> Rape of who?


The suggestion would surely be the 15 year old that he 'married'.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> The suggestion would surely be the 15 year old that he 'married'.


That's what I assumed though it's quite likely he raped Yazidi women too so didn't want to grab the wrong end of the stick. Was just curious how one minute she's being treated as an adult who made a decision to be evil with no context allowable and the next minute she's a minor whose decisions and body belong to the state.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2019)

OK. Of course you will argue this for all 15, year olds. The ones that say this kesher bloke perved over.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> OK. Of course you will argue this for all 15, year olds. The ones that say this kesher bloke perved over.


Argue what? All I'm arguing is that someone else's argument is inconsistent.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> Argue what? All I'm arguing is that someone else's argument is inconsistent.


I see someone arguing that sex with a 15 year old is wrong and they'd like to see people who do it punished. And someone else putting the case that this is wrong and that 15 year olds are not the property of the state and can make their own mind up, whilst simultaneously arguing that wider context means that they're not fully responsible for their actions . I know which one looks inconsistent to me.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> That's what I assumed though it's quite likely he raped Yazidi women too so didn't want to grab the wrong end of the stick. Was just curious how one minute she's being treated as an adult who made a decision to be evil with no context allowable and the next minute she's a minor whose decisions and body belong to the state.


Here's the rub though; people age. She was there for 4 years.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> Argue what? All I'm arguing is that someone else's argument is inconsistent.


You really want to try to hang an argument on this?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2019)

Age of consent in Syria is 15 fwiw.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I see someone arguing that sex with a 15 year old is wrong and they'd like to see people who do it punished. And someone else putting the case that this is wrong and that 15 year olds are not the property of the state and can make their own mind up, whilst simultaneously arguing that wider context means that they're not fully responsible for their actions . I know which one looks inconsistent to me.


But I haven't argued that at all have I? It would be inconsistent as you point out.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> But I haven't argued that at all have I? It would be inconsistent as you point out.


Righto.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> That's what I assumed though it's quite likely he raped Yazidi women too so didn't want to grab the wrong end of the stick. Was just curious how one minute she's being treated as an adult who made a decision to be evil with no context allowable and the next minute she's a minor whose decisions and body belong to the state.



Is there any reason why the age of criminal responsibility and that of consent should align?  In the UK, for example, they're 10 and 16 respectively.  It's possible to be old enough to appreciate what you are doing is wrong at the same time as being young enough to require some protection from others.

What's the alternative?  Allow, say, 13 year olds to stab people with complete impunity, or allow adults to sleep with 13 year olds with complete impunity?


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Age of consent in Syria is 15 fwiw.



I don't know about the Netherlands specifically, but there's an EU directive that requires member states to enact legislation for extra-territorial application of child abuse laws to its own citizens. So he might be caught by that, even if what he was doing was legal in Syria.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You really want to try to hang an argument on this?



I'm just pointing out that you don't actually have a consistent argument, it's just you screaming 'hang 'em high' again. It's boring and means that any attempt at discussing the context is attacked as apologism. As I have been just for pointing out what I see as an inconsistency.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Depends where they are.  In Iraq,  ISIS women have been banged up or worse.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjACegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw20qPUlOtMpw9l_zsRlXYuJ


I think the French have got this right. You can't really blame them when you consider that at least 3 of the Paris attackers were returnees from Syria. Belgium has been hit twice by returning ISIS fighters and their court of appeal has just blocked the return of 2 other ISIS slugs.

In case anyone thinks that the UK position is on this is unique, the Dutch have also been busy stripping citizenships from their travelling Jihadis. Quite why they should be minded to naturalize Begum and recognise a marriage that would have been illegal in Holland, is beyond me.

Netherlands strip four jihadists of citizenship
Nijmegen jihadist stripped of Dutch nationality


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> I'm just pointing out that you don't actually have a consistent argument, it's just you screaming 'hang 'em high' again. It's boring and means that any attempt at discussing the context is attacked as apologism. As I have been just for pointing out what I see as an inconsistency.



Even putting aside the fact that her support of ISIS continued into adulthood, do you think consistency requires the age of consent to be the same as the age of criminal responsibility? What age would you set them at, then?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> That's what I assumed though it's quite likely he raped Yazidi women too


as opposed to just possible... how do you quantify 'quite likely'? 10% probability? 20%? 75%? or haven't you given the matter a moment's thought and it was simply a throwaway remark?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> I'm just pointing out that you don't actually have a consistent argument.


Cockrot. It's perfectly consistent. 

He fucked a 15 year old girl when he was 23. She supported ISIS in rape and genocide and kept a slave (possibly for her husband to rape) between the ages of 15 *and 19.* 

Where's the inconsistency?


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Cockrot. It's perfectly consistent.
> 
> He fucked a 15 year old girl when he was 23. She supported ISIS in rape and genocide and kept a slave (possibly for her husband to rape) between the ages of 15 *and 19.*
> 
> Where's the inconsistency?


At what age did she become responsible for her crimes?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> At what age did she become responsible for her crimes?


Legally, in the UK, 10.


----------



## 8115 (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Legally, in the UK, 10.


It's not set in stone. You can be arrested and tried in court at 10 as I understand it but I think the CPS (?) have discretion.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

8115 said:


> It's not set in stone. You can be arrested and tried in court at 10 as I understand it but I think the CPS (?) have discretion.


After your 10th birthday you can be arrested and taken to court. But of course it will be youth courts. The CPS have discretion over prosecuting in all cases regardless of the age of the offender.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Cockrot. It's perfectly consistent.
> 
> He fucked a 15 year old girl when he was 23. She supported ISIS in rape and genocide and kept a slave (possibly for her husband to rape) between the ages of 15 *and 19.*



I've seen it mentioned a few times that she had a slave.  Is this true?  Any links?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2019)

8115 said:


> It's not set in stone. You can be arrested and tried in court at 10 as I understand it but I think the CPS (?) have discretion.


tbh i could be nicked and tried in court but the cps have discretion and need not prosecute me - it's not a given that every crime committed by someone of or above the age of criminal responsibility is going to end in court as Spymaster said


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> At what age did she become responsible for her crimes?




she became responsible for her crimes at the age she committed them. she couldn't be responsible at 10 for crimes she committed when she was 15, could she?


----------



## 8115 (Mar 4, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh i could be nicked and tried in court but the cps have discretion and need not prosecute me - it's not a given that every crime committed by someone of or above the age of criminal responsibility is going to end in court


I think there is discretion over what age someone can be held criminally responsible. It's a fine point of law admittedly but I remember it from the Bulger case. I could be wrong.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've seen it mentioned a few times that she had a slave.  Is this true?  Any links?


Someone posted something on here somewhere a while back. All I can find now is her defending it:



> According to BBC Middle East correspondent Quentin Sommerville, Begum "still believes IS propaganda".
> 
> He said: "When I asked her about the enslavement, murder and rape of Yazidi women by IS, she said 'Shia do the same in Iraq'.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Legally, in the UK, 10.


So why point out she was guilty from the age of 15 to 19 when you clearly believe, and have previously stated, she was guilty aged 15?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> So why point out she was guilty from the age of 15 to 19 when you clearly believe, and have previously stated, she was guilty aged 15?


Eh 

What are you on about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> So why point out she was guilty from the age of 15 to 19 when you clearly believe, and have previously stated, she was guilty aged 15?


i hope this isn't your killer point


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Someone posted something on here somewhere a while back. All I can find now is her defending it:


by an excellent bit of whataboutery


----------



## Teaboy (Mar 4, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I've seen it mentioned a few times that she had a slave.  Is this true?  Any links?



Her husband sort of suggests they didn't but it could be interpreted in different ways.  He said he knew of a Dutch guy out there who had a slave, he doesn't mention whether that Dutch guy was actually him.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2019)

8115 said:


> I think there is discretion over what age someone can be held criminally responsible. It's a fine point of law admittedly but I remember it from the Bulger case. I could be wrong.



I think you might be thinking of the earlier position. Until 1998, the doctrine of _doli incapax_ meant that children under 14 were presumed incapable of committing a crime, but that presumption was rebuttable by evidence of capacity.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Eh
> 
> What are you on about?


If you're going to do the 'I don't understand English' bit again I'm going to go take advantage of what little sun we might get this morning.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> So why point out she was guilty from the age of 15 to 19 when you clearly believe, and have previously stated, she was guilty aged 15?



This is nuts. His position is surely that she first became guilty - morally, and in the eyes of the law - of membership of IS when she joined at 15, and  she continued to commit that crime until she left at 19.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> If you're going to do the 'I don't understand English' bit again I'm going to go take advantage of what little sun we might get this morning.


No, seriously. Read what you posted back there. It doesn't make sense.

 Look, stop dicking about. Firstly; can we agree that 23 year olds who have sex with 15 year olds need to be looked at by the authorities?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

Athos said:


> This is nuts. His position is surely that she first became guilty - morally, and in the eyes of the law - of membership of IS when she joined at 15, and  she continued to commit that crime until she left at 19.


Why don't you get this maomao ? 

Are you misunderstanding the point or just having a ding-dong? I'm happy to accommodate you either way but need to know where you're coming from!


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why don't you get this maomao ?
> 
> Are you misunderstanding the point or just having a ding-dong? I'm happy to accommodate you either way but need to know where you're coming from!


My whole point is in post 2501. I'm off down the park with the kids.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> I'm off down the park with the kids.


I don't blame you!


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2019)

maomao said:


> My whole point is in post 2501. I'm off down the park with the kids.


Good idea.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 7, 2019)




----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 7, 2019)

The39thStep said:


>




Was watching interviews with some of these women in the camp the other evening and have to say I came over all Spymastery, shoot 'em all.


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 7, 2019)

fuck shabima init. you cant help people that stupid.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 7, 2019)

The most heart breaking videos I've seen are the orphaned kids in the camps that were kidnapped by ISIS .People now trying to find relatives or people that will take them in.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 7, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Was watching interviews with some of these women in the camp the other evening and have to say I came over all Spymastery, shoot 'em all.


Racist! Misogynist!


----------



## brogdale (Mar 8, 2019)

Guardian reporting sad news that Shamima Begum's infant son has died.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Mar 8, 2019)

brogdale said:


> Guardian reporting sad news that Shamima Begum's infant son has died.


Fuck.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

Infant deaths are always sad but shame on his slug mother for creating this situation.


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 8, 2019)

LOL jesus was he even real?


----------



## eatmorecheese (Mar 8, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Infant deaths are always sad but shame on his slug mother for creating this situation.


One of thousands, no doubt


----------



## kebabking (Mar 8, 2019)

eatmorecheese said:


> One of thousands, no doubt



indeed. there are still huge numbers of human remains on Sinjar mountain.

its desperately sad that a baby - assuming it actually existed - has died, but that child was no more (or less) deserving of help than the hundreds of thousands of babies and young children who are sleeping in temporary structures in Syria, Jordan and Iraq because of the hell that IS unleashed and its mother was quite happy to join in with.

perhaps most relevent to the UK is that without the child to safeguard, there is now no chance that she will be admitted into the UK...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 8, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> LOL jesus was he even real?


Questionable.


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 8, 2019)

haha gutted shabima


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 8, 2019)

A dead baby, massive lols


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 8, 2019)

was directed at the last half of the last sentence on kebabs post, but go ahead make some shit up and get angry about it,.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Mar 8, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> haha gutted shabima



Yay for baby dying


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 8, 2019)

again...

was directed at the last half of the last sentence on kebabs post, but go ahead make some shit up and get angry about it,.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Mar 8, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> again...
> 
> was directed at the last half of the last sentence on kebabs post, but go ahead make some shit up and get angry about it,.


Fair enough, but the context of your post wasn't clear. Looked a bit wtf from my perspective as well tbh, but no matter.


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 8, 2019)

eatmorecheese said:


> Fair enough, but the context of your post wasn't clear. Looked a bit wtf from my perspective as well tbh, but no matter.




even though I have repeated myself twice and 25 minutes have lapsed from the post in question that people are attributing the wrong meanings to in their own head. not my problem, neither is clarity.

now if I had actually posted 'ding dong the babys dead' then there might be a point, but I didn't, so why waste time on facepalms and disparaging remarks.

having to explain every motive like one is talking to a child is pretty exhausting.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 8, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> was directed at the last half of the last sentence on kebabs post, but go ahead make some shit up and get angry about it,.


Make some shit up yourself about me getting angry. Try quoting what you're responding to, you've been here long enough to know that. 

Mmnerrrrr


----------



## friedaweed (Mar 8, 2019)

It's a pretty fucked up world alright!


----------



## Riklet (Mar 8, 2019)

60,000 more refugees stuck at that camp apparently with plenty of kids dying every day. Fucked up.

Sad news like any kid dying. Even sadder is  theres plenty of people stuck there, genuine refugees, far more deserving of help than all the unrepentant ISIS shitbags.


----------



## pengaleng (Mar 9, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


> Make some shit up yourself about me getting angry. Try quoting what you're responding to, you've been here long enough to know that.
> 
> Mmnerrrrr




why dont you try not making snap assumptions that make you look like an idiot?\

jobsworth.


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 9, 2019)

pengaleng said:


> why dont you try not making snap assumptions that make you look like an idiot?\
> 
> jobsworth.


----------



## maomao (Mar 9, 2019)

twentythreedom said:


>


Don't you have to be paid to be a jobsworth? How come you're getting paid for the shite you post and I'm not for mine?


----------



## twentythreedom (Mar 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> Don't you have to be paid to be a jobsworth? How come you're getting paid for the shite you post and I'm not for mine?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> perhaps most relevant to the UK is that without the child to safeguard, there is now no chance that she will be admitted into the UK...



there is no way our racist deport-for-fun, dont-care-who-dies government was ever going to defy the frothing headlines and do anything other than leave them both to the vultures



kebabking said:


> its desperately sad that a baby - assuming it actually existed


sorry, havent been following the thread, what does "assuming it actually existed" refer to?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

ska invita said:


> there is no way our racist deport-for-fun, dont-care-who-dies government was ever going to defy the frothing headlines and do anything other than leave them both to the vultures


Good on ‘em. Goes to show that even a stopped clock is right occasionally.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

ska invita said:


> sorry, havent been following the thread, what does "assuming it actually existed" refer to?


Go on, have a guess.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 9, 2019)

hah i got my stop watch out to count how long before you responded...7 minutes, bit slow, but i guess it is saturday


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

ska invita said:


> hah i got my stop watch out to count how long before you responded...7 minutes, bit slow, but i guess it is saturday


Should’ve done better to be fair. I see the race card mantra is rubbing off!


----------



## extra dry (Mar 9, 2019)

Is she back then, or dead kid, dead story?


----------



## LDC (Mar 9, 2019)

Pretty shit media coverage laying the blame on the British State for the baby's death. Even if the State had gone all out to bring the kid back it could well have taken this long to get anything off the ground in order to do so.

The State can be blamed for many things but this isn't one of them, the blame lies squarely with the mother and the shit conditions of the camp, something created by IS which she put a lot of effort into crossing the world to join and actively support.

Her baby's death, her responsibility.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Pretty shit media coverage laying the blame on the British State for the baby's death. Even if the State had gone all out to bring the kid back it could well have taken this long to get anything off the ground in order to do so.
> 
> The State can be blamed for many things but this isn't one of them, the blame lies squarely with the mother and the shit conditions of the camp, something created by IS which she put a lot of effort into crossing the world to join and actively support.
> 
> Her baby's death, her responsibility.


Don't see why it should have taken long, if journos can apparently come and go as they please. If the will had been there there'd have been no difficulty repatriating her. Didn't realise it was a daesh camp, thought it was run by the sdf


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 9, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Her baby's death, her responsibility.




fucking hell.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

And people told me _I'd_ let the side down on this thread. Fucking hell.


----------



## Rob Ray (Mar 9, 2019)

Amazing how psychotically callous people can get sometimes when they reckon they're on stream with the moral majority.


----------



## maomao (Mar 9, 2019)

I don't really agree with what Abbot said because it ignored the high level of difficulty and risk in any attempt to get the baby back but it would be nice if people could show a little dignity and respect about any dead child.


----------



## LDC (Mar 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Don't see why it should have taken long, if journos can apparently come and go as they please. If the will had been there there'd have been no difficulty repatriating her. Didn't realise it was a daesh camp, thought it was run by the sdf



Journos can come and go for sure, but not that easily and they're a bit different in terms of responsibility and whether they're a target etc. etc.. If there was a team of folks (FCO, military, medical, psycho support etc. ) sent to bring her back it would have been a very different scene.

She ran off to join IS and then happily lived in an area for years where they threw gay people off the tops of buildings, tortured and murdered people, and kept young girls as slaves to be raped, and much more. There she married an IS fighter and had 2 babies who have both died.

Thousands of people have died, been tortured, been made stateless, lost their families and much more due to what her and her lot did and while the death of her child is sad it pales into insignificance to what she helped do, so sorry if I don't shed one single fucking tear for her and the situation she's now in.

All the sympathy I have is for the thousands of lives lost and ruined by what IS did, not one fucking drop of it is for her.

One example...

Yazidi leaders call for help finding thousands of missing women and children kidnapped by Isis


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Journos can come and go for sure, but not that easily and they're a bit different in terms of responsibility and whether they're a target etc. etc.. If they'd be a team of folks (FCO, military, medical, psycho support etc. ) sent to bring her back it would have been very different scene.
> 
> She ran off to join IS and then happily lived in an area for years where they threw gay people off the tops of buildings, tortured and murdered people, and kept young girls as slaves to be raped, and much more. There she married an IS fighter and had 2 babies who have both died.
> 
> ...


In response to your first paragraph, I think that's bollocks. They wouldnt need to send a convoy of all sorts of people, some special forces of whom I'm sure there're some in that neck of the woods could have brought her back after hmg had chatted to sdf.

Whether what's possible is desirable is of course a different question. I think it'd send a better message that people who do this fighters or not will be brought back and will rot in prison.

(edited 'got' to 'rot')


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> fucking hell.



So who's else is it?

Mine? Yours?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So who's else is it?
> 
> Mine? Yours?




I'm not getting into this. I reacted to what I see as a horrible sentiment.

It's the mother's fault that her baby died. Right-oh.

If you can't see what's wrong with that then you need to have a word with yourself.


----------



## LDC (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So who's else is it?
> 
> Mine? Yours?



Corbyn's/Sajid Javid*.

*Delete as appropriate. Anyone but hers or the situation she helped create, obviously.


----------



## LDC (Mar 9, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I'm not getting into this. I reacted to what I see as a horrible sentiment.
> 
> It's the mother's fault that her baby died. Right-oh.
> 
> If you can't see what's wrong with that then you need to have a word with yourself.



I didn't say fault. I said she bears responsibility.

A person who supports throwing gay people off buildings.

Maybe if the child had grown up to be gay she would have chucked him off to his death then anyway right?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> I'm not getting into this. I reacted to what I see as a horrible sentiment.
> 
> It's the mother's fault that her baby died. Right-oh.
> 
> If you can't see what's wrong with that then you need to have a word with yourself.



The word used was _responsibility, _not fault.

Who's decisions put the child in a refugee camp in northern Syria in the middle of winter?


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 9, 2019)

Okay . responsibility.

I imagine she is fully aware that she bears responsibility of the death of her children.

Let's string her up!


----------



## LDC (Mar 9, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Okay . responsibility.
> 
> I imagine she is fully aware that she bears responsibility of the death of her children.
> 
> Let's string her up!



Hmmm, probably not. Imagine she thinks Allah willed it as the child was weak right?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Corbyn's/Sajid Javid*.
> 
> *Delete as appropriate. Anyone but hers or the situation she helped create, obviously.


Blair and Bush for starters
And Obama and Brown and Cameron
They did rather more than Begum to create the Islamic state


----------



## maomao (Mar 9, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Okay . responsibility.
> 
> I imagine she is fully aware that she bears responsibility of the death of her children.
> 
> Let's string her up!



You're not allowed to discuss what's happened in any sort of context at all because that's letting her off the hook apparently. Because a fifteen year old girl can be solely culpable for genocide but isn't old enough to decide whether she wants to sleep with David Bowie.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Mar 9, 2019)

I feel like I've stumbled into the daily mail.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 9, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Hmmm, probably not. Imagine she thinks Allah willed it as the child was weak right?




Is there actually something wrong with you?

Rather than projecting what you imagine onto some kind of cartoon murderous bot, try to imagine being a 19 year old who has borne and then lost three children. Whatever else she's thinking or experiencing or whatever she's doing to try to explain or understand this, three of her children have died.

Are you measuring her pain and saying it's more justified, more deserved than the woman whose children died but she was living somewhere else?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> I feel like I've stumbled into the daily mail.


Yeh it's like the parallel universe I have nightmares about where I post on urban57


----------



## Athos (Mar 9, 2019)

Before we blame her entirely for her child's fate, let's not forget that her husband also played a part in bringing a kid into those conditions!


----------



## LDC (Mar 9, 2019)

SheilaNaGig said:


> Is there actually something wrong with you?



I'm much more compassionate and softer in the flesh than on the internet, but probably yeah. It's not my fault though.


----------



## SheilaNaGig (Mar 9, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'm much more compassionate and softer in the flesh than on the internet, but probably yeah. It's not my fault though.




But you are entirely responsible for your own posts.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> Because a fifteen year old girl can be solely culpable for genocide but isn't old enough to decide whether she wants to sleep with David Bowie.


Has anyone suggested that she’s solely responsible for the genocide or are you spouting massive bollocks again?


----------



## maomao (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Has anyone suggested that she’s solely responsible for the genocide or are you spouting massive bollocks again?



I'm being slightly facetious and my point is _still_ that you and others waving your justice boners around prevents any interesting discussion on a multitude of threads.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> I'm being slightly facetious and my point is _still_ that you and others waving your justice boners around prevents any interesting discussion on a multitude of threads.


You can discuss whatever you want mate. Nobody’s deleting your posts. If they stand up they’ll be discussed but there’s an extreme ambivalence to the fate of this evil slug for the multiple reasons already mentioned. It’s a shame the child has died but _she_ created the situations in which he was born and died.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 9, 2019)

"It's a shame the child has died but" is always a bad look.


----------



## maomao (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You can discuss whatever you want mate. Nobody’s deleting your posts. If they stand up they’ll be discussed


I've already been accused of trying to lessen her guilt the last time I made the same point and everyone who's tried to discuss the issues of racism and sexism that this case illuminates has been treated the same. It's very dull.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> It's very dull.


And yet here you are.


----------



## maomao (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> And yet here you are.


I work weekends. What's your excuse for posting on a Saturday night?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

maomao said:


> I work weekends. What's your excuse for posting on a Saturday night?


I’m currently the question-master of a charidee quiz night in my local and posting between asking questions. Having more fun than you are by the sound of it!


----------



## 2hats (Mar 9, 2019)

Have there been any mathematically oriented questions yet? Like how to work out one's age from your birthday?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 9, 2019)




----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

2hats said:


> Have there been any mathematically oriented questions yet? Like how to work out one's age from your birthday?


There’s a reason why I’m asking the questions and not answering them.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> There’s a reason why I’m asking the questions and not answering them.



Is it because nobody wants to be on your team?


----------



## Thimble Queen (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is it because nobody wants to be on your team?


----------



## ska invita (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> So who's else is it?
> 
> Mine? Yours?


You didn't answer my question, did the dead baby " exist"? What was that about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> There’s a reason why I’m asking the questions and not answering them.


You wrote the quiz


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

2hats said:


> Have there been any mathematically oriented questions yet? Like how to work out one's age from your birthday?


It's wicked to mock the afflicted


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> You wrote the quiz


I did. And because of my lack of attention to the project, I’ve just had to adjudicate a question regarding Stuart monarchs.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Is it because nobody wants to be on your team?


That goes without saying because I’m not a super popular “trained pilot” like you, Maverick.

Another cross I have to bear.


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> shame on his slug mother





kebabking said:


> its desperately sad that a baby - assuming it actually existed...



#slowhandclap


----------



## weltweit (Mar 9, 2019)

Pretty awful, three kids and all dead, and still only a young woman herself.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

ska invita said:


> You didn't answer my question, did the dead baby " exist"? What was that about?



Because being heavily pregnant/the existence of an entirely innocent newborn was very helpful to her campaign to be allowed to return to the UK. Had she not been pregnant, or not had a child, it's quite possible that her request would have generated less debate, received even less shrift, and the government less criticism for revoking her citizenship.

That doesn't mean that she could not have been pregnant, or that the child we saw wasn't hers, but it's merely healthy cynicism about the lengths someone who is both a hardened, commited fanatic and desperate to get out of a refugee camp will go to - she's not stupid, she lived in the UK for 15 years, she has _some _understanding of our sensibilities.

I may be all hard arse about her, I was less so about the child. I was uneasy to the point of being prepared to compromise on my 'fuck her' attitude in order to secure the childs' safety - and if I was uneasy, then people who were far less hard arse about her would jump at bringing her back in order to secure the child.

If I can work that out, then so can she. Cynicism, when dealing with deeply unpleasant people, just saves time...


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Because being heavily pregnant/the existence of an entirely innocent newborn was very helpful to her campaign to be allowed to return to the UK. Had she not been pregnant, or not had a child, it's quite possible that her request would have generated less debate, received even less shrift, and the government less criticism for revoking her citizenship.
> 
> That doesn't mean that she could not have been pregnant, or that the child we saw wasn't hers, but it's merely healthy cynicism about the lengths someone who is both a hardened, commited fanatic and desperate to get out of a refugee camp will go to - she's not stupid, she lived in the UK for 15 years, she has _some _understanding of our sensibilities.
> 
> ...



Well done you!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Because being heavily pregnant/the existence of an entirely innocent newborn was very helpful to her campaign to be allowed to return to the UK. Had she not been pregnant, or not had a child, it's quite possible that her request would have generated less debate, received even less shrift, and the government less criticism for revoking her citizenship.
> 
> That doesn't mean that she could not have been pregnant, or that the child we saw wasn't hers, but it's merely healthy cynicism about the lengths someone who is both a hardened, commited fanatic and desperate to get out of a refugee camp will go to - she's not stupid, she lived in the UK for 15 years, she has _some _understanding of our sensibilities.
> 
> ...


Wasn't that helpful to her campaign, she's still in n syria


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Wasn't that helpful to her campaign, she's still in n syria



I didn't say it would work, just that it might fail less spectacularly....


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Pretty awful, three kids and all dead, and still only a young woman herself.



Magda Goebbels. My heart fucking bleeds....


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I didn't say it would work, just that it might fail less spectacularly....



I’m sure she’ll be grateful for your insight...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> #slowhandclap


You get a pass from me on here out of respect for Bishta.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Magda Goebbels. My heart fucking bleeds....



Three dead kids, it should do. Or is their death just suitable punishment for her?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> I’m sure she’ll be grateful for your insight...



It's free - unlike the steam off my piss...


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You get a pass from me on here out of respect for Bishta.



Piss poor weak offering - don’t need no passes from anyone, least of all you


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I didn't say it would work, just that it might fail less spectacularly....


You said it was very helpful to her campaign, a campaign which has hardly been crowned with success. I'd have thought the government might have wanted her back to debrief if nothing else. If you think back to the British people who joined the Nazis in the war, in the little ss unit, the government didn't cancel their citizenship and leave them wandering Central Europe. Surprised it's so different now when daesh have levied war against this country among others


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It's free - unlike the steam off my piss...



You charge for the steam off your piss?

The army’s broadening its income stream (pardon the pun)


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Three dead kids, it should do. Or is their death just suitable punishment for her?



Do you have huge amounts of sympathy for the wives of slavers who's children fill the graveyards of the West Indies?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Do you have huge amounts of sympathy for the wives of slavers who's children fill the graveyards of the West Indies?


Not sure that's really who fills the graveyards of the West indies, the slavers were in nantes and Bristol and Liverpool and bloomsbury


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> -don’t need no passes from anyone, least of all you


Yeah but you don’t get to say who gets a pass. I’m bestowing one upon you. No returns.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah but you don’t get to say who gets a pass. I’m bestowing one upon you. No returns.


Don't pass go do not collect £200


----------



## kebabking (Mar 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Not sure that's really who fills the graveyards of the West indies, the slavers were in nantes and Bristol and Liverpool and bloomsbury



The slavers were also in the West Indies - as well as in the plantations in the US - and their children suffered spectacular mortality rates through disease. As a visit to any of their churches in those places would show you....


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah but you don’t get to say who gets a pass. I’m bestowing one upon you. No returns.



Fuck off lol


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> The slavers were also in the West Indies - as well as in the plantations in the US - and their children suffered spectacular mortality rates through disease. As a visit to any of their churches in those places would show you....


How fortunate you are that you weren't in the army then or your bones might be there too. Where would you be, where would this country be, if it hadn't benefitted from the slaves' labour? You've benefitted from slavery far more than auld Begum did


----------



## YouSir (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Do you have huge amounts of sympathy for the wives of slavers who's children fill the graveyards of the West Indies?



I have plenty for the children, aye. And some for 15 years old headed to warzones too. But then I'm not playing at righteous vengeance and treating the deaths of others as some satisfying vindication.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 9, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> How fortunate you are that you weren't in the army then or your bones might be there too. Where would you be, where would this country be, if it hadn't benefitted from the slaves' labour? You've benefitted from slavery far more than auld Begum did



On the plus side if Kebabking had been there we could take grim satisfaction with the death of each of their children. Terrible shame of course but still, _good._


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> Fuck off lol


You fuck off 

I’m getting into a row that I don’t want here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You fuck off
> 
> I’m getting into a row that I don’t want here.


There's never been a row you didn't want


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

kebabking said:


> its desperately sad that a baby - assuming it actually existed...



I’m genuinely interested why you posted this - from desperately sad.... to not a real baby, is quite a leap.


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 9, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You fuck off
> 
> I’m getting into a row that I don’t want here.



Then let it go - I lost interest ages ago...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 9, 2019)

I’m


abstract1 said:


> Then let it go - I lost interest ages ago...


Gone.


----------



## Edie (Mar 10, 2019)

I’m a bit shocked at the callous attitude of some of the men on this thread. Genuinely. Her baby has just died!


----------



## weltweit (Mar 10, 2019)

Edie said:


> I’m a bit shocked at the callous attitude of some of the men on this thread. Genuinely. Her baby has just died!


I agree, and not just this baby, her previous 2 children also.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

Edie said:


> I’m a bit shocked at the callous attitude of some of the men on this thread. Genuinely. Her baby has just died!



I feel more sorry for the baby in this case than I do for her.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 10, 2019)

To differentiate between the causes and the victims is fair.


----------



## Humberto (Mar 10, 2019)

They were the victims of Isis. Her fault.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 10, 2019)

This story reminds me of the way so called 'benefits' are dealt with in the establishment play book.

First off the press find a story where someone has managed miraculously to cheat the benefit system. Cue endless coverage pouring over the details and full on  vilification.

Once enough indignation had been whipped up endless warriors pound keyboards and assorted self righteous useful mouth pieces call up talk radio and bang the drum that much more.

The government then uses the heat created to melt down previously existing rights, and cite public opinion as why the benefit system has to be even crueler to be fair.

The system becomes even harsher and more innocent people suffer, if not die as a result.

And so it is here, a nice soft target to kick to death and create a good opportunity for overturning previous rights.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

I think the thing with benefits is that they absolutely *should* come down hard on people taking the piss.  It has a corrosive effect on what would normally be people's willingness to pay into the pot for people who hit hard times (it could be any one of us) as well as shrinking the size of the pot.

Benefit fraud, however, gets used as an attack on *anyone* claiming benefits.

We need to destigmatise claiming benefits, but stay harsh on people with their hand in the till, because that just lets certain elements try to profit from dismantling the whole system.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think the thing with benefits is that they absolutely *should* come down hard on people taking the piss.  It has a corrosive effect on what would normally be people's willingness to pay into the pot for people who hit hard times (it could be any one of us) as well as shrinking the size of the pot.
> 
> Benefit fraud, however, gets used as an attack on *anyone* claiming benefits.
> 
> We need to destigmatise claiming benefits, but stay harsh on people with their hand in the till, because that just lets certain elements try to profit from dismantling the whole system.


How hard is hard in your mind?
White collar criminals make fortunes and get a slap on the wrist if caught, to make money by defrauding social security is a pretty desperate crime from someone starting in a position of relative weakness.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> How hard is hard in your mind?
> White collar criminals make fortunes and get a slap on the wrist if caught, to make money by defrauding social security is a pretty desperate crime from someone starting in a position of relative weakness.



Bit of whataboutery there.  I didn't say there weren't greater crimes out there.
But if you have any data about how many benefit fraudsters are in a desperate situation and doing it to scrape together a subsistence, as opposed to those raking in a good whack with multiple identities etc. I'd be interested to see it.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Mar 10, 2019)

This child is the victim of this death cult alongside countless thousands of others. Begum and her husband are victims too, it's just that (so far) the consequences haven't been terminal for them. Victims can be perpetrators, too. That doesn't justify or excuse crimes they committed.

The last couple of pages of this thread have left me queasy. Or maybe that's too much gin.

Why do we have to counter the horror of this shit by hardening our compassion? That's the only thing that can possibly neutralise it. These fundamentalists absolutely bank on generating hatred to create their perverse endless war.

Yer, too much gin, maundering like a hippy x


----------



## Humberto (Mar 10, 2019)

They've no redeeming features have they? Murdered their way into power. Of course, she is chattel to them, but then most people who do fucked up things are fucked up themselves.


----------



## Edie (Mar 10, 2019)

8ball said:


> I think the thing with benefits is that they absolutely *should* come down hard on people taking the piss.  It has a corrosive effect on what would normally be people's willingness to pay into the pot for people who hit hard times (it could be any one of us) as well as shrinking the size of the pot.
> 
> Benefit fraud, however, gets used as an attack on *anyone* claiming benefits.
> 
> We need to destigmatise claiming benefits, but stay harsh on people with their hand in the till, because that just lets certain elements try to profit from dismantling the whole system.


Absolutely agree.


----------



## Edie (Mar 10, 2019)

eatmorecheese said:


> This child is the victim of this death cult alongside countless thousands of others. Begum and her husband are victims too, it's just that (so far) the consequences haven't been terminal for them. Victims can be perpetrators, too. That doesn't justify or excuse crimes they committed.
> 
> The last couple of pages of this thread have left me queasy. Or maybe that's too much gin.
> 
> ...


I didn’t think you were maundering.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

The39thStep said:


>




Look at this. Look at the other ones where these women in the camps are praising ISIS. There’s fucking thousands of them and they will be so dangerous if allowed to disperse around the globe. There is no way to de-radicalise them all, and really why should the rest of us go to the expense of trying when if it could be 90% successful that would still leave hundreds of exceptionally dangerous lunatics out there who are determined to slaughter as many people as they can.

We can’t just leave them rotting in these camps though, so what can be done with them?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Look at this. Look at the other ones where these women in the camps are praising ISIS. There’s fucking thousands of them and they will be so dangerous if allowed to disperse around the globe. There is no way to de-radicalise them all, and really why should the rest of us go to the expense of trying when if it could be 90% successful that would still leave hundreds of exceptionally dangerous lunatics out there who are determined to slaughter as many people as they can.
> 
> We can’t just leave them rotting in these camps though, so what can be done with them?


Separate the ISIS from the humans, take the kids out, and bomb what’s left.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Could be lots more people for the south atlantic projects


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Look at this. Look at the other ones where these women in the camps are praising ISIS. There’s fucking thousands of them and they will be so dangerous if allowed to disperse around the globe. There is no way to de-radicalise them all, and really why should the rest of us go to the expense of trying when if it could be 90% successful that would still leave hundreds of exceptionally dangerous lunatics out there who are determined to slaughter as many people as they can.
> 
> We can’t just leave them rotting in these camps though, so what can be done with them?


If many thousands more of Germans could be denazified why can't this relatively small number of people not be screened with irreconcilables dealt with by criminal process in one of several available jurisdictions?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Two more slugs stripped of their British citizenships UK 'strips two more IS brides' citizenship' 

It looks like at least one of these two actually took her child from the UK to Syria to join IS.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> If many thousands more of Germans could be denazified why can't this relatively small number of people not be screened with irreconcilables dealt with by criminal process in one of several available jurisdictions?



Were they denazified though? I think most just accepted Germany’s defeat. This lot are stating that IS will continue in spite of losing the caliphate war.


----------



## maomao (Mar 10, 2019)

Has there ever been a defeated army or nation that didn't scream for victory in their final moments? What did you expect them to say?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

We've _actually_ had someone on here saying that the nazis were treated better than we're treating ISIS ... because they were aryan.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> Has there ever been a defeated army or nation that didn't scream for victory in their final moments? What did you expect them to say?



Think what IS has already being doing for a number of years well away from the caliphate. This lot are openly stating that they want more of that. This is a very different situation to a regular army or nation suffering defeat. The Nazis couldn’t carry on, IS can, they can just rent a van and drive it in to people.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Think what IS has already being doing for a number of years well away from the caliphate. This lot are openly stating that they want more of that. This is a very different situation to a regular army or nation suffering defeat. The Nazis couldn’t carry on, IS can, they can just rent a van and drive it in to people.



Fascism was famously obliterated for good in 1945 of course


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Fascism was famously obliterated for good in 1945 of course


You're making his point for him, Top Gun.


----------



## teqniq (Mar 10, 2019)

Couple of observations from Twitter that I thought pretty spot on.


----------



## andysays (Mar 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> ...Because a fifteen year old girl can be solely culpable for genocide but isn't old enough to decide whether she wants to sleep with David Bowie.


There is certainly an interesting and rather disturbing contrast between the attitudes of some posters on these two issues.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

teqniq said:


> Couple of observations from Twitter that I thought pretty spot on.
> 
> View attachment 164048
> 
> View attachment 164049


Bleeding heart bullshit. This woman travelled 2000 miles to support mass rape and genocide and the only reason she's not still doing it is because IS have been militarily defeated in the region.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Look at this. Look at the other ones where these women in the camps are praising ISIS. There’s fucking thousands of them and they will be so dangerous if allowed to disperse around the globe. There is no way to de-radicalise them all, and really why should the rest of us go to the expense of trying when if it could be 90% successful that would still leave hundreds of exceptionally dangerous lunatics out there who are determined to slaughter as many people as they can.
> 
> We can’t just leave them rotting in these camps though, so what can be done with them?


There was a brief moment once, perhaps in the 90s, where it was considered the role of democracies to be dispassionate exemplars of international law. Now it seems that politicians are entirely at liberty to make individual cases as personal moral examples.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Bleeding heart bullshit. This woman travelled 2000 miles to support mass rape and genocide and the only reason she's not still doing it is because IS have been militarily defeated in the region.


She's a child who has done all kinds of stupid things. But as she is brown and the topic is Islam, she is doomed.

If she was blonde and blue eyed and had been indoctrinated by some xtian cult in Canada, the narrative would be different.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> There was a brief moment once, perhaps in the 90s, where it was considered the role of democracies to be dispassionate exemplars of international law. Now it seems that politicians are entirely at liberty to make individual cases as personal moral examples.


Which bits of international law do you think have been broken here?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

_They're just like the nazis, so we should leave them all to rot in camps._

Well, I guess this would be the 'second time as farce' you hear so much about.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> She's a child who has done all kinds of stupid things. But as she is brown and the topic is Islam, she is doomed.
> 
> If she was blonde and blue eyed and had been indoctrinated by some xtian cult in Canada, the narrative would be different.


If she was blonde and blue eyed and had been involved in rape, genocide, and slavery, she'd be being treated very similarly I think. Of course it's easy to come out with these silly assertions because there are no comparisons, which is why you lot have to keep harping on about nazis.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Which bits of international law do you think have been broken here?



Withdrawing her British citizenship when she has no other?


----------



## maomao (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Bleeding heart bullshit. This woman travelled 2000 miles to support mass rape and genocide and the only reason she's not still doing it is because IS have been militarily defeated in the region.


Personally I'm okay with being accused of bleeding heart bullshit by someone who's just advocated mass murder and arguably genocide.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> ... arguably genocide.


Go on then. This should be fun.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Withdrawing her British citizenship when she has no other?


She legally has Bangladeshi nationality. This has been done in some depth already


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> She's a child who has done all kinds of stupid things. But as she is brown and the topic is Islam, she is doomed.
> 
> If she was blonde and blue eyed and had been indoctrinated by some xtian cult in Canada, the narrative would be different.



Not from me.

The crux point, for me, is that it's not just her actions/support in Syria that damn her, it's that she knew perfectly well what it was she was going to Syria to take part in/be a part of long before she she nicked her sisters passport and got on a plane.

It's the prior knowledge and approval - and that would apply to anyone who went overseas and did, or enabled/supported, vile things.


----------



## maomao (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Go on then. This should be fun.


I'll admit to a little hyperbole but you advocated the mass murder of non combatants. How many people? Five figures?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Were they denazified though? I think most just accepted Germany’s defeat. This lot are stating that IS will continue in spite of losing the caliphate war.


I'm talking about the number of people who actually went through the denazification process not the entire population of the zones occupied by the western allies


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

maomao said:


> How many people? Five figures?


How many are there?

We can’t bomb them anyway. That’d be illegal, so perhaps a bit of hyperbole on my part too. 

What we can do is strip the citizenships of those with dual nationality and leave them where they are.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It's the prior knowledge and approval - and that would apply to *anyone* who went overseas and did, or enabled/supported, vile things.



Unless they are UK armed forces.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Unless they are UK armed forces.


Yeh but they do it with dignity


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but they do it with dignity



And the cunning use of flags.


----------



## abstract1 (Mar 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> The crux point, for me, is that it's not just her actions/support in Syria that damn her, it's that she knew perfectly well what it was she was going to Syria to take part in/be a part of long before she she nicked her sisters passport and got on a plane.
> 
> It's the prior knowledge and approval - and that would apply to anyone who went overseas and did, or enabled/supported, vile things.



I’m interested in the circumstances which led to her doing what she did - it won’t have happened in a vacuum.

To even begin to attempt to safeguard against future situations like this, we need to have a better understanding of the vulnerabilities, as well as the risks which led up to her leaving the UK - travelling to Syria to align yourself with ISIS is pretty extreme and not what most young people are considering doing.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 10, 2019)

abstract1 said:


> I’m interested in the circumstances which led to her doing what she did - it won’t have happened in a vacuum.
> 
> To even begin to attempt to safeguard against future situations like this, we need to have a better understanding of the vulnerabilities, as well as the risks which led up to her leaving the UK - travelling to Syria to align yourself with ISIS is pretty extreme and not what most young people are considering doing.


Are you sure you haven't fully considered the bomb all slugs all the time argument?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

Another case to watch...

Isis bride detained in Syria is 'former Irish army corporal' | Metro News


----------



## Idaho (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Which bits of international law do you think have been broken here?


Rendering someone stateless.


----------



## Edie (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Separate the ISIS from the humans, take the kids out, and bomb what’s left.


No I’m sorry you can’t say that. They are humans, and you cannot just indiscriminately kill them.


----------



## Edie (Mar 10, 2019)

^does that actually need to be said aloud


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> Rendering someone stateless.


Except the UK didn't do that. It's possible that Bangladesh are choosing to make her stateless, however.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Mar 10, 2019)

Edie said:


> No I’m sorry you can’t say that. They are humans, and you cannot just indiscriminately kill them.



Sorry, I struggle with the idea that anyone involved in ISIS is actually human.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 10, 2019)

And they say IS has lost.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Sorry, I struggle with the idea that anyone involved in ISIS is actually human.



Very much the same view they have of their victims I reckon.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 10, 2019)

Hands up who hates ISIS the most


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Sorry, I struggle with the idea that anyone involved in ISIS is actually human.



I hear they actually have more in common with crabs.


----------



## Edie (Mar 10, 2019)

cupid_stunt said:


> Sorry, I struggle with the idea that anyone involved in ISIS is actually human.


Dehumanising makes it easier to confront, but they are human. Humans can be terrible. They’re still humans though, and they still have human rights. That’s kind of the point?

(Or are you and everyone else being sarcastic- I really can’t tell).


----------



## killer b (Mar 10, 2019)

Edie said:


> Dehumanising makes it easier to confront, but they are human. Humans can be terrible. They’re still humans though, and they still have human rights. That’s kind of the point?
> 
> (Or are you and everyone else being sarcastic- I really can’t tell).


It's just a performance tbh.


----------



## LDC (Mar 10, 2019)

ska invita said:


> Hands up who hates ISIS the most



Good point.

Probably many people in Syria and Iraq more than any of us?

So maybe we could listen to what they have to say rather than people here who frankly have no fucking real clue about what has been going on there, nor have lost anyone or anything themselves, yet seem to be falling over themselves to excuse people that helped IS, as well as suddenly thinking that them having a UK passport is some sort of get-out-of jail-free card for them rather than being dealt with by the people from the area in which they committed the crimes in.

And yes thanks, I get the complexities of why people might end up doing terrible things, especially young women. But my original post was made in reaction to some of the coverage where actually the tendency was much more towards ignoring any of those complexities and just talking about Begum as purely a victim, something some elements of the left is very good at.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Good point.
> 
> Probably many people in Syria and Iraq more than any of us?
> 
> So maybe we could listen to what they have to say rather than people here who frankly have no fucking real clue about what has been going on there, nor have lost anyone or anything themselves, yet seem to be falling over themselves to excuse people that helped IS, as well as suddenly thinking that them having a UK passport is some sort of get-out-of jail-free card for them rather than being dealt with by the people from the area in which they committed the crimes in.



Who's sought to excuse IS members or say that anyone should avoid punishment? And when it comes to British citizens the duty of justice is as much ours as anyone elses. Although involving the victims in that process should be an obvious aspect.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Good point.
> 
> Probably many people in Syria and Iraq more than any of us?
> 
> ...


Soz, who's said she's nothing but a victim?


----------



## LDC (Mar 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Soz, who's said she's nothing but a victim?



Couple of _Guardian_ articles, some people in conversations/arguments, and a few other articles. Definitely a tendency on here among some as well I think.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Couple of _Guardian_ articles, some people in conversations/arguments, and a few other articles. Definitely a tendency on here among some as well I think.



Feel free to point out the people doing it here.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

So anyways

How is it illegal to make someone stateless but Javid is revoking Citizenship all over the place


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> So anyways
> 
> How is it illegal to make someone stateless but Javid is revoking Citizenship all over the place



Vengeance is popular, doesn't matter if it's legal. Until the appeals come in anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Edie said:


> No I’m sorry you can’t say that. They are humans, and you cannot just indiscriminately kill them.


Tosh.Dresden, cologne, hamburg, Hiroshima, nagasaki, Vietnam... 'we' have an excellent track record in killing people indiscriminately


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Couple of _Guardian_ articles, some people in conversations/arguments, and a few other articles. Definitely a tendency on here among some as well I think.


Yeh, who on here?


----------



## LDC (Mar 10, 2019)

Smick said:


> She went out there at the age of fifteen, is only nineteen now. I would be inclined to treat her compassionately based on her making poor decisions as a kid, something we have all done.
> 
> Her lack of regret only shows her naivety.
> 
> Single motherhood as a teenager in Bethnal Green isn't going to be a bed of roses.



Exhibit A.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Exhibit A.


and? Let's see all your exhibits and go through them together


----------



## brogdale (Mar 10, 2019)

Mulling as culling.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Couple of _Guardian_ articles, some people in conversations/arguments, and a few other articles. Definitely a tendency on here among some as well I think.


Not sure the Guardian an element of the left, tbh. Nor am I sure offhand of Smick's politics. Is smick an element of the left?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> So anyways
> 
> How is it illegal to make someone stateless but Javid is revoking Citizenship all over the place



If they have two - or more - citizenships then revoking one doesn't make them stateless?

If you have two cars, and one gets stolen, you are not carless....


----------



## Smick (Mar 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Not sure the Guardian an element of the left, tbh. Nor am I sure offhand of Smick's politics. Is smick an element of the left?


I don't really understand what you mean. 

I'm probably more of a soft shite than an element of the left. 

I've definitely got sympathy for this girl, who wouldn't for a mother who loses a child?

I think I'd feel the same if she fecked off to some crowd of neo-nazis. Does that make me less of an element of the left?

Either way, I'm just some prick off the internet, spouting ill-informed opinion, and whose only influence in the matter is at the ballot box.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> If they have two - or more - citizenships then revoking one doesn't make them stateless?
> 
> If you have two cars, and one gets stolen, you are not carless....



if you have only one passport

how can you have dual Citizenship


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Good point.
> 
> Probably many people in Syria and Iraq more than any of us?
> 
> ...



As far as I can tell Iraq is nicking any ISIS people, trying them and sentencing them to death. Which is why so many are heading to the camps in Syria. Again, as far as I can tell Iraq is not carrying out many sentences, but death row in Iraq is probably the kind of place you’d rather not end up.


I think there will need to be some kind of Nuremberg trial for these fuckers in the camps, something ‘we’ should be helping with, seems a bit rich to leave it all up to the Kurds, especially with all the shit they have going on concurrently with our NATO ally Turkey...


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> if you have only one passport
> 
> how can you have dual Citizenship



A passport doesn’t confer citizenship.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Smick said:


> I don't really understand what you mean.
> 
> I'm probably more of a soft shite than an element of the left.
> 
> ...


Tbh I know your (user) name but have never really engaged with you so when I saw LynnDoyleCooper bring you up as an example if what he was talking about I wasn't sure if you fitted his description as an element of the left. You're alright by me tho.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As far as I can tell Iraq is nicking any ISIS people, trying them and sentencing them to death. Which is why so many are heading to the camps in Syria. Again, as far as I can tell Iraq is not carrying out many sentences, but death row in Iraq is probably the kind of place you’d rather not end up.
> 
> 
> I think there will need to be some kind of Nuremberg trial for these fuckers in the camps, something ‘we’ should be helping with, seems a bit rich to leave it all up to the Kurds, especially with all the shit they have going on concurrently with our NATO ally Turkey...


It's likely not over yet tho as I'm led to believe northern Iraq seething with sunni discontent


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> It's likely not over yet tho as I'm led to believe northern Iraq seething with sunni discontent



Yeah. Blair really deserves his squillions.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> A passport doesn’t confer citizenship.



so how is Shamima Begum a Pakistani national

having never been to the country


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah. Blair really deserves his squillions.


Blair deserves to be dropped from a bomber onto the final daesh redoubt


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> so how is Shamima Begum a Pakistani national
> 
> having never been to the country


She isn't, she's supposed to have Bangladeshi nationality, if you believe hmg


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> so how is Shamima Begum a Pakistani national
> 
> having never been to the country



It seems that possibly via an incredibly dubious legal technicality that she has Bangladeshi citizenship, which quite probably wouldn’t stand up in court, but seeing as neither the UK nor Bangladesh wants her I can’t imagine her being in a position to launch appeals and shit.

However her dad yesterday apologised to the UK on her behalf, something a parent should not have to do, but the interesting thing about his was that he did so from his home in Bangladesh. So perhaps she is not as alien to that country as has been alluded...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It seems that possibly via an incredibly dubious legal technicality that she has Bangladeshi citizenship, which quite probably wouldn’t stand up in court, but seeing as neither the UK nor Bangladesh wants her I can’t imagine her being in a position to launch appeals and shit.
> 
> However her dad yesterday apologised to the UK on her behalf, something a parent should not have to do, but the interesting thing about his was that he did so from his home in Bangladesh. So perhaps she is not as alien to that country as has been alluded...



Because her dad lives there now or is visiting there at the moment she_ must_ have been there too?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Because her dad lives there now or is visiting there at the moment she_ must_ have been there too?



Do you understand what the word _perhaps _means?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Because her dad lives there now or is visiting there at the moment she_ must_ have been there too?



Perhaps is now must, yeah?


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> She isn't, she's supposed to have Bangladeshi nationality, if you believe hmg



I think their argument is that she could claim Bangladeshi nationality, not that she has it (because she clearly doesn't).  Among their world-class collection of ludicrous arguments it stands out a bit.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Because her dad lives there now or is visiting there at the moment she_ must_ have been there too?


It's pretty disgraceful. Government is supposed to be sober and bureaucratic. Having politicians collude with tabloid campaigns for popularity is pathetic. This British citizen is being made stateless to appeal to a simple, vengeful narrative. She is being assumed to be Bangladeshi as she's a brown skinned Muslim.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

You think this shit was an interesting distraction to another shit show playing out in public

or someone had leadership ambitions of being a hard man


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Perhaps is now must, yeah?



No it clearly isn't obviously so how have you concluded that there is any possibility when nothing apart from her dad being there now has even hinted that she has ever been there?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Do you understand what the word _perhaps _means?



I do. What about her dad being in Bangladesh now, a place he was born in means that the she has ever been there? That hasn't been questioned until now... Actually, it's in line with the weird 'did her son actually exist' conspiralunacy expressed in recent pages.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No it clearly isn't obviously so how have you concluded that there is any possibility when nothing apart from her dad being there now has even hinted that she has ever been there?



I hate to break it to you, but under Bangladeshi law she's at the very least entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, and may actually be a Bangladeshi citizen without having to apply for it. Thus, not stateless.

My brother is a New Zealand citizen despite never having been there - citizenship is not dependent on whether you've been to the country in question....


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> However her dad yesterday apologised to the UK on her behalf, something a parent should not have to do, but the interesting thing about his was that he did so from his home in Bangladesh. So perhaps she is not as alien to that country as has been alluded...



Let's everyone just ignore the fact that the Bangladeshi government has publically stated that Begum is not now and has never been a Bangladeshi citizen.

Can't believe this is now a place where people are openly backslapping a tory home secretary for his decision to violate international law for the sake of a few favourable headlines in the gutter press. Have a look at yourselves for fuck's sake.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

and that why i've stayed away from the thread

*goes back to pictures of cats*


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I hate to break it to you, but under Bangladeshi law she's at the very least entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship, and may actually be a Bangladeshi citizen without having to apply for it. Thus, not stateless.


 Why all the drama?  I hate to break it to you but I have been reading this thread since the beginning and am fully aware of the 'Bangladeshi citizenship by default' argument. I haven't mentioned her 'status or statelessness' Savid's crafty slight of hand removing her British citizenship and her dad now being in Bangladesh doesn't mean she has been there. Don't be daft.


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> It's pretty disgraceful. Government is supposed to be sober and bureaucratic. Having politicians collude with tabloid campaigns for popularity is pathetic. This British citizen is being made stateless to appeal to a simple, vengeful narrative. She is being assumed to be Bangladeshi as she's a brown skinned Muslim.



Not to disagree needlessly, but to suggest this is done to appeal to a simple, vengeful narrative is to considerably overstate the logic of what they have done here.  It is to suggest they did what the 1945 government did with its people who went to fight / work for the enemy - ie: publicly punish (in that case execute) the famous ones to send a message to everyone else (though even that government let almost all the rest, including all those who actually did fight for the Nazis, back in).  

This lot haven't done that; they've publicly gone after people - girls - who go to refugee camps and talk to journalists instead.  The message they are sending out is don't come to notice when you try to get back.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No it clearly isn't obviously so how have you concluded that there is any possibility when nothing apart from her dad being there now has even hinted that she has ever been there?



Nothing apart from her parents both being born and raised in Bangladesh and at least her father calling the place his main home. Sure, she could have zero connection to the country, that is perfectly possible. However it is suggested that should she rock up in Chittagong or wherever that she would be in an alien environment, I ain’t convinced.

But as I put at the start of my post, which you chose to ignore, I think the citizenship stripping was dubious and wouldn’t stand up in a court of law.

And now some dick’ead is calling that back-slapping Javid.

Disingenuous doesn’t even begin to cover the behaviour being displayed here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> It's pretty disgraceful. Government is supposed to be sober and bureaucratic. Having politicians collude with tabloid campaigns for popularity is pathetic. This British citizen is being made stateless to appeal to a simple, vengeful narrative. She is being assumed to be Bangladeshi as she's a brown skinned Muslim.


Don't know where you get this notion of sober and bureaucratic government after at least 30 years of shrill government campaigns against scroungers, girls getting pregnant to get council flats, immigrants, beggars, football fans, etc etc. Government *should* be impartial, in line with the law, based on evidence. But this is more honoured in the breach than the observance.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> But as I put at the start of my post, which you chose to ignore, I think the citizenship stripping was dubious and wouldn’t stand up in a court of law.



You could probably leave out all the stuff about her definitely being a Bangladeshi citizen then don't you think?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> She is being assumed to be Bangladeshi as she's a brown skinned Muslim.


  She is being assumed to have Bangladeshi citizenship because one or more of her parents were born there and under Bangladeshi law that automatically makes her a Bangladeshi citizen until she is 21.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> You could probably leave out all the stuff about her definitely being a Bangladeshi citizen then don't you think?



What thing is that then?


----------



## LDC (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> She is being assumed to be Bangladeshi as she's a brown skinned Muslim.



Oh ffs, no. This thread is dramatic enough without you inventing things.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Nothing apart from her parents both being born and raised in Bangladesh and at least her father calling the place his main home. Sure, she could have zero connection to the country, that is perfectly possible. However it is suggested that should she rock up in Chittagong or wherever that she would be in an alien environment, I ain’t convinced.
> 
> But as I put at the start of my post, which you chose to ignore, I think the citizenship stripping was dubious and wouldn’t stand up in a court of law.
> 
> ...




No I didn't chose to ignore any of your points. 

I was just struck at your suggestion that because her dad lives there now she 'perhaps' has been lying and has actually been there. Being the child of Bangladeshi parents that she grew up with at home means it's impossible that she has zero 'connection' to the country, even from a distance, obviously...also she's from Bethnal Green, just growing up there would have nurtured a 'connection' at the very least even if she had been an orphan because of the significant Bangladeshi community there.

That doesn't mean she's been there. That doesn't mean a lie has been told. That she has a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship has not been proven beyond doubt either, as you yourself can see.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Oh ffs, no. This thread is dramatic enough without you inventing things.



oi motherfucker don't misquote me

i never stated that


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let's everyone just ignore the fact that the Bangladeshi government has publically stated that Begum is not now and has never been a Bangladeshi citizen.


In total contradiction of their own laws, and after the UK withdrew her British rights. If anyone has made her stateless it's Bangladesh.


----------



## LDC (Mar 10, 2019)

Shamima... who? Never heard of her.


----------



## cyril_smear (Mar 10, 2019)

Is she dead yet?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> That she has a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship has not been proven beyond doubt either, as you yourself can see.


Yes it has.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> No I didn't chose to ignore any of your points.
> 
> I was just struck at your suggestion that because her dad lives there now she 'perhaps' has been lying and has actually been there. Being the child of Bangladeshi parents that she grew up with at home means it's impossible that she has zero 'connection' to the country, even from a distance...also she's from Bethnal Green, just growing up there would have nurtured a 'connection' at the very least even if she had been an orphan because of the significant Bangladeshi community there.
> 
> That doesn't mean she's been there. That doesn't mean a lie has been told. That she has a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship has not been proven beyond doubt either, as you yourself can see.



Afaik no one has suggested she has lied cos she hasn’t spoken about it in any coherent way.

I think that on the dubious technically she is a duel citizen, but as have consistently stated, she is the UK’s problem if the Kurds/Syrians want shot of her.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> I think their argument is that she could claim Bangladeshi nationality, not that she has it (because she clearly doesn't).  Among their world-class collection of ludicrous arguments it stands out a bit.



No, it's the complete opposite i.e. that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship, by default, regardless of whether or not she has ever been there or taken any step to apply for it. 

And that position seems to be fairly unequivocally reflected in Bsngladeshi law, regardless of what any Bangladeshi politician might claim.

None if which changes the fact that Javid is a cunt, if course.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> I think their argument is that she could claim Bangladeshi nationality, not that she has it (because she clearly doesn't).


This is completely incorrect.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

so your idea is if someone is troubling 

fuck them off to their parents birth country


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)




----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> That she has a legal right to Bangladeshi citizenship has not been proven beyond doubt either, as you yourself can see.



It pretty much has (not that proof beyond doubt is the applicable standard in this instance); Bangladeshi law is clear on this point, as is the the domestic case law around British courts' interpretation of Bangladeshi law.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Let's everyone just ignore the fact that the Bangladeshi government has publically stated that Begum is not now and has never been a Bangladeshi citizen.



Are you seriously suggesting we should take Bangladeshi politicians at their word?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Afaik no one has suggested she has lied cos she hasn’t spoken about it in any coherent way.


 Well you seemed to suggest it...it reminded me of the silly suggestions in the last few pages that her son didn't even exist either.



> So perhaps she is not as alien to that country as has been alluded...



Both Shabina and her family have said she has never been to Bangladesh AFAICR...neither have argued she has no 'connection' to Bangladesh though have they which would be silly given both her parents are from there.



> ...as have consistently stated, she is the UK’s problem *if the Kurds/Syrians want shot of her.*


 Yes, I am pretty much in agreement with this.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Are you seriously suggesting we should take Bangladeshi politicians at their word?



are you saying we should take British politicians at their word?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> In total contradiction of their own laws, and after the UK withdrew her British rights. If anyone has made her stateless it's Bangladesh.


You know that's disingenuous bollocks, yes?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> are you saying we should take British politicians at their word?


No. He's suggesting that we take Bangladeshi law (most of which he has linked to on this thread and you clearly haven't read) at it's word.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You know that's disingenuous bollocks, yes?


No. I know that you and others keep pretending that it is.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> are you saying we should take British politicians at their word?



No. I'm saying the Bangladeshi law is quite clear that she's a Bangladeshi citizen. That fact doesn't make Javid any the less a cunt for stripping her of her British citizenship.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. I know that you and others keep pretending that it is.


In Latin America, the British are often known as 'los piratas'. It's for this kind of behaviour. Shameless, morally bankrupt actions like claiming that someone who's never even been to Bangladesh is Bangladeshi.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In Latin America, the British are often known as 'los piratas'. It's for this kind of behaviour. Shameless, morally bankrupt actions like claiming that someone who's never even been to Bangladesh is Bangladeshi.


Tough shit. The UK aren't alone in claiming it. Bangladeshi law does too.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Are you seriously suggesting we should take Bangladeshi politicians at their word?



I'm seriously suggesting that playing 'not it' between governments is not a productive approach to these matters.

I'm also inclined to give official statements from the Bangladeshi foreign ministry slightly more weight than pronouncements from the U75 town drunk.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In Latin America, the British are often known as 'los piratas'. It's for this kind of behaviour. Shameless, morally bankrupt actions like claiming that someone who's never even been to Bangladesh is Bangladeshi.



The art of doublespeak. Immoral, shameless, dishonest, masquerading as intelligence, authority and civilised.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. He's suggesting that we take Bangladeshi law (most of which he has linked to on this thread and you clearly haven't read) at it's word.



I believe in a post i made rather than someone misquoting me

I said i've not be following the thread

but i'll not be thanking the British government for palming of a Citizen to appeal to right wing media support


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> I said i've not be following the thread


Perhaps you should, rather than posting uninformed nonsense.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

At 90 odd pages of this thread,

I did not think i'd be hurting the informative narrative


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is completely incorrect.





Athos said:


> No, it's the complete opposite i.e. that she does have Bangladeshi citizenship, by default, regardless of whether or not she has ever been there or taken any step to apply for it.
> 
> And that position seems to be fairly unequivocally reflected in Bsngladeshi law, regardless of what any Bangladeshi politician might claim.
> 
> None if which changes the fact that Javid is a cunt, if course.



It isn't.  She would be a Bangladeshi citizen by default if she chose to be, because of her descent.  She was not one before - she was a British citizen - and she does not automatically become one just because HMG have stripped her of her British citizenship - that would only happen if she had been a dual national (which as far as I am aware, she wasn't).


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm seriously suggesting that playing 'not it' between governments is not a productive approach to these matters.
> 
> I'm also inclined to give official statements from the Bangladeshi foreign ministry slightly more weight than pronouncements from the U75 town drunk.



I agree with you that it's an appalling way for the Home Secretary to behave.  But that doesn't change the fact of the position under the law. 

That you're willing to to take a Bangladeshi politician at his word when the relevant provisions under Bangladeshi law (which have been posted here) are clear, is quite telling.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> It isn't.  She would be a Bangladeshi citizen by default if she chose to be, because of her descent.  She was not one before - she was a British citizen - and she does not automatically become one just because HMG have stripped her of her British citizenship - that would only happen if she had been a dual national (which as far as I am aware, she wasn't).


We have something of an existential question here, to which the answer is really very obvious. Can someone who doesn't know she is a citizen of a particular country, where that country doesn't know she even exists, in fact be a citizen of that country in some kind of Platonic idealistic sphere in such a way that it can be used to negate her citizenship of the country she was born and grew up in? It is only a disingenuous, dishonest person who can answer 'yes' to that. Amazed that anyone is defending Javid's cuntery here.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> It isn't.  She would be a Bangladeshi citizen by default if she chose to be, because of her descent.  She was not one before - she was a British citizen - and she does not automatically become one just because HMG have stripped her of her British citizenship - that would only happen if she had been a dual national (which as far as I am aware, she wasn't).


No. This is completely wrong.

Bangladeshi law confers citizenship on her by descent _automatically until she is 21_. After the age of 21 she would lose that citizenship unless she takes formal steps to retain it.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> It isn't.  She would be a Bangladeshi citizen by default if she chose to be, because of her descent.  She was not one before - she was a British citizen - and she does not automatically become one just because HMG have stripped her of her British citizenship - that would only happen if she had been a dual national (which as far as I am aware, she wasn't).



Under Bangladeshi law, someone born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen; there is no requirement for them to take any steps, or make any steps to apply for citizenship - it's automatic.  Their prohibition on dual citizenship means this expires at 21, but another provision makes an exception for UK citizens which allows dual citizenship to continue if certain steps are taken. Because she wasn't 21, her automatic Bangladeshi  citizenship hadn't expired, such that she was a dual citizen.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We have something of an existential question here, to which the answer is really very obvious. Can someone who doesn't know she is a citizen of a particular country, where that country doesn't know she even exists, in fact be a citizen of that country in some kind of Platonic idealistic sphere in such a way that it can be used to negate her citizenship of the country she was born and grew up in? It is only a disingenuous, dishonest person who can answer 'yes' to that. Amazed that anyone is defending Javid's cuntery here.



To recognise the position under Bangladeshi law is not to defend Javid's actions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

Both you and spymaster are spectacularly missing the point here. This is not about the exact wording of Bangladeshi law, it is about whether or not a person's British citizenship should be contingent on the exact wording of the laws of other countries that might grant citizenship on the basis of their parents' place of origin. To accede to this is to create a whole new category of second-class citizens that includes, but is not limited to, any British person with a Bangladeshi mother. You're British, but not quite as British as other British people.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Both you and spymaster are spectacularly missing the point here. This is not about the exact wording of Bangladeshi law, it is about whether or not a person's British citizenship should be contingent on the exact wording of the laws of other countries that might grant citizenship on the basis of their parents' place of origin.



No, I get the point. And don't think it *should*. But, according to the law, it *is*.  It's a dead end arguing that Javid has acted illegally; it's a far better argument that he's acted the cunt.  And that the effect of that law (and its blatantly racist application) is to create two-tier citizenship, which is both wrong and counter-productive.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, I get the point. And don't think it *should*. But, according to the law, it *is*.  It's a dead end arguing that Javid has acted illegally; it's a far better argument that he's acted the cunt.


No, it is exactly the point to argue that he acted illegally. Doubt anyone would take this to the highest court on this person's behalf, but it would do us all a service if someone were to. I don't think it's anywhere near as cut and dried as you think it is. This is a clear case of discrimination.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Both you and spymaster are spectacularly missing the point here. This is not about the exact wording of Bangladeshi law, it is about whether or not a person's British citizenship should be contingent on the exact wording of the laws of other countries that might grant citizenship on the basis of their parents' place of origin. To accede to this is to create a whole new category of second-class citizens that includes, but is not limited to, any British person with a Bangladeshi mother. You're British, but not quite as British as other British people.





Athos said:


> No, I get the point. And don't think it *should*. But, according to the law, it *is*.  It's a dead end arguing that Javid has acted illegally; it's a far better argument that he's acted the cunt.



Same as this. Nothing illegal had been done by the UK. 

On the morality of it, unlike Athos, I couldn't care less.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, it is exactly the point to argue that he acted illegally.


Oh, ffs.


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. This is completely wrong.
> 
> Bangladeshi law confers citizenship on her by descent _automatically until she is 21_. After the age of 21 she would lose that citizenship unless she takes formal steps to retain it.





Athos said:


> Under Bangladeshi law, someone born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen; there is no requirement for them to take any steps, or make any steps to apply for citizenship - it's automatic.  Their prohibition on dual citizenship means this expires at 21, but another provision makes an exception for UK citizens which allows dual citizenship to continue if certain steps are taken. Because she wasn't 21, her automatic Bangladeshi  citizenship hadn't expired, such that she was a dual citizen.



... and again, she did not chose to be a Bangladeshi citizen; she was (is) a British citizen.  That the law over there would consider her to be one is immaterial, because she doesn't consider herself to be one.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Oh, ffs.


You're the legal expert here, no doubt, but I dispute what both you and Athos say as to the legality of this. There are much bigger questions here, to do with UK law, not Bangladeshi law, and what constitutes illegal discrimination. For a more deserving case, I could see this taken to a higher court and arguments to be made.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, it is exactly the point to argue that he acted illegally. Doubt anyone would take this to the highest court on this person's behalf, but it would do us all a service if someone were to. I don't think it's anywhere near as cut and dried as you think it is. This is a clear case of discrimination.



Did you read the cases I linked to?  That this sort of discrimination against dual citizens is lawful is pretty much settled.  Not that I object to anyone challenging it; rather, I don't hold out much hope.  I think the legal position is much more cut and dried than you think.  It's not really arguable that discrimination on the basis of nationality in unlawful _per se _- that's the *whole* basis of immigration law!


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Same as this. Nothing illegal had been done by the UK.
> 
> On the morality of it, unlike Athos, I couldn't care less.



aside from the legal standpoint

what is your personal view?


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> ... and again, she did not chose to be a Bangladeshi citizen; she was (is) a British citizen.  That the law over there would consider her to be one is immaterial, because she doesn't consider herself to be one.



Rightly or wrongly, that's not what the law here says.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Did you read the cases I linked to?  That this sort of discrimination against diesel citizens is lawful is pretty much settled.  Not that I object to anyone challenging it; rather, I don't hold out much help.  I think the legal position is much more cut and dried than toy think.


No it isn't. As I said before, the argument wasn't made in the cases where they were over 21. They didn't need to - they very sensibly went with the argument they thought was the most likely to be successful. Didn't you used to be a lawyer? Fuck, I wouldn't hire you.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Did you read the cases I linked to?  That this sort of discrimination against diesel citizens is lawful is pretty much settled.  Not that I object to anyone challenging it; rather, I don't hold out much help.  I think the legal position is much more cut and dried than toy think.



I'm no expert on any thing legal, but even if there is significant wiggle room there, I agree with you that it is utterly beyond dispute that Javid acted the cunt.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Ax^ said:


> what is your personal view?


That she should not be allowed back to the UK under any circumstances and should be tried in Iraq or Syria.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 10, 2019)

That she has some legal grounds to claim Bangladeshi citizenship is immaterial on two counts :

1 - all those who have made up their minds against her did so long before this rebuff was dreamt up
2 - the possibility of someone claiming citizenship of a country isn't the same as citizenship. Therefore removing citizenship is de facto rendering them stateless.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Jesus


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Rightly or wrongly, that's not what the law here says.



Does it?  I am not aware of any cases where a British-born, British citizen has had their citizenship stripped (without conviction) below the age of 21 on the basis that because some other country would consider them as citizens of that country, so they wouldn't be stateless.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No it isn't. As I said before, the argument wasn't made in the cases where they were over 21. They didn't need to - they very sensibly went with the argument they thought was the most likely to be successful. Didn't you used to be a lawyer? Fuck, I wouldn't hire you.



That's not how cases are argued. If the was any possibility that they weren't automatically Bangladeshi citizens that would have been argued on an 'in the alternative' basis in those cases.  It wasn't, and, in any event, the court's rationale on this point appears clear from the judgments in those cases - that Bagladeshi citizenship is automatic doesn't seem to be seriously disputed by anyone with any understanding of the legal position.

I hope I'm wrong about that, and that it's successfully challenged, but, as things stand, it's hard to see a sound legal basis for doing so.  I can't see your idea that it's discriminatory flying.  That it's lawful to discriminate based on nationality underpins the whole of immigration law, and the other cases in which dual citizens have been stripped of British citizenship in circumstances in which a sole British citizen wouldn't be demonstrates the court accepts differential treatment of some British citizens.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Jesus



Weren't you advocating bombing a load of people earlier as an act of righteous venegance?


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

Idaho said:


> That she has some legal grounds to claim Bangladeshi citizenship is immaterial on two counts :
> 
> 1 - all those who have made up their minds against her did so long before this rebuff was dreamt up
> 2 - the possibility of someone claiming citizenship of a country isn't the same as citizenship. Therefore removing citizenship is de facto rendering them stateless.



The point is that she *is* a Bagladeshi citizen, not that she's entitled to *claim* Bagladeshi citizenship.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> Does it?  I am not aware of any cases where a British-born, British citizen has had their citizenship stripped (without conviction) below the age of 21 on the basis that because some other country would consider them as citizens of that country, so they wouldn't be stateless.



Lots of people have been stripped of British citizenship because other states consider them to be citizens, such that depriving then of British citizenship doesn't make them stateless. Examples have been posted earlier in this thread.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> Does it?  I am not aware of any cases where a British-born, British citizen has had their citizenship stripped (without conviction) below the age of 21 on the basis that because some other country would consider them as citizens of that country, so they wouldn't be stateless.



Yes you are.


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes you are.



Am I?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Lots of people have been stripped of British citizenship because other states consider them to be citizens, such that depriving then of British citizenship doesn't make them stateless.


Over 150 in the last 2 years.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Over 150 in the last 2 years.



Still want to blanket bomb people?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> Am I?



Yep. We’re discussing it right now.


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Lots of people have been stripped of British citizenship because other states consider them to be citizens, such that depriving then of British citizenship doesn't make them stateless. Examples have been posted earlier in this thread.



It would be more correct to say that lots of people have been stripped of British citizenship because British courts consider that other states consider them to be citizens.  

It is somewhat typical that we can react to one of these states saying that a 19 year old girl who was born in another country, lived in that country for almost all her life, was radicalized in that country and who left that country with other citizens of that country to go to a war zone by saying "_sorry, we have read a translation of your law and we've determined she is your problem_".


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

YouSir said:


> Still want to blanket bomb people?


As I said after that, it was a tongue in cheek remark designed to wind up people like you, but I actually couldn't care less what happens to people who've gone out of their way to support rape, slavery, and genocide.


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yep. We’re discussing it right now.



Sorry, any other cases.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 10, 2019)

Can you imagine if isis had around 400 years to develop


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> As I said after that, it was a tongue in cheek remark designed to wind up people like you, but I actually couldn't care less what happens to people who've gone out of their way to support rape, slavery, and genocide.



It didn't wind me up, I just wanted to confirm that you're as big a cunt as you seem. Evidently you are. Toungue in cheek or not.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

YouSir said:


> ... I just wanted to confirm that you're as big a cunt as you seem.


In that case you should've just asked.


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> It would be more correct to say that lots of people have been stripped of British citizenship because British courts consider that other states consider them to be citizens.
> 
> It is somewhat typical that we can react to one of these states saying that a 19 year old girl who was born in another country, lived in that country for almost all her life, was radicalized in that country and who left that country with other citizens of that country to go to a war zone by saying "_sorry, we have read a translation of your law and we've determined she is your problem_".



Yes, it's settled law that the courts England and Wales consider the application of foreign law to be a question of fact.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> In that case you should've just asked.



I did, you confirmed it. Case closed.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

Well done.


----------



## YouSir (Mar 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well done.



Last word.


----------



## agricola (Mar 10, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, it's settled law that the courts England and Wales consider the application of foreign law to be a question of fact.



Which is where the problem with this lies.  Our courts have made a series of decisions in individual cases that have resulted collectively in the Home Office thinking that it will be ok to strip this girl of her British citizenship, even though the very notion (that it is legal to do this to people aged 20 and under but becomes illegal the moment they turn 21) is patently absurd given the reasons why the Home Office feels the need to do this in the first place.  Meanwhile the country that would have to deal with this person is just expected to get on with it.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> Which is where the problem with this lies.  Our courts have made a series of decisions in individual cases that have resulted collectively in the Home Office thinking that it will be ok to strip this girl of her British citizenship, even though the very notion (that it is legal to do this to people aged 20 and under but becomes illegal the moment they turn 21) is patently absurd given the reasons why the Home Office feels the need to do this in the first place.


Do you realise_ why _it becomes illegal after they reach the age of 21 (in the case of Bangladeshi dual nationals)?


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2019)

agricola said:


> Which is where the problem with this lies.  Our courts have made a series of decisions in individual cases that have resulted collectively in the Home Office thinking that it will be ok to strip this girl of her British citizenship, even though the very notion (that it is legal to do this to people aged 20 and under but becomes illegal the moment they turn 21) is patently absurd given the reasons why the Home Office feels the need to do this in the first place.  Meanwhile the country that would have to deal with this person is just expected to get on with it.



She's a woman, not a "girl".

I've not argued it was a good decision by Javid, or that the law is a good one (quite the opposite on both counts). But that, as the law stands, what's happened appears to be lawful.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> In total contradiction of their own laws, and after the UK withdrew her British rights. If anyone has made her stateless it's Bangladesh.


In total contradiction to the Home Office's own policy and guidelines in dealing with IS women with children wanting to return to the UK. But hey ho...


----------



## Raheem (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> In total contradiction of their own laws, and after the UK withdrew her British rights. If anyone has made her stateless it's Bangladesh.


Yeah, cos let's face it, she's mainly Bangladesh's responsibility.


----------



## maomao (Mar 11, 2019)

And that's really where you want to dump a few jihadis at a loose end. A state in crisis without the resources to watch anyone and with an established jihadi culture.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Do you realise_ why _it becomes illegal after they reach the age of 21 (in the case of Bangladeshi dual nationals)?



Does the Home Office?  I mean, the distinction over 21 came as the result of them losing a court case.  If they were to lose this one when it appears as well....


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> Does the Home Office?  I mean, the distinction over 21 came as the result of them losing a court case.  If they were to lose this one when it appears as well....


No it didn’t. You have got this the wrong way around.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

maomao said:


> And that's really where you want to dump a few jihadis at a loose end. A state in crisis without the resources to watch anyone and with an established jihadi culture.


could be Britain, political crisis check police resources in crisis check established jihadi culture check


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

Raheem said:


> Yeah, cos let's face it, she's mainly Bangladesh's responsibility.





maomao said:


> And that's really where you want to dump a few jihadis at a loose end. A state in crisis without the resources to watch anyone and with an established jihadi culture.



I don’t want her sent to Bangladesh.


----------



## maomao (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don’t want her sent to Bangladesh.


Yes, you want her murdered. We know.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

maomao said:


> Yes, you want her murdered. We know.


No. I want her tried in the country she committed the bulk of her crimes. That’s Syria or maybe Iraq.


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> Does the Home Office?  I mean, the distinction over 21 came as the result of them losing a court case.  If they were to lose this one when it appears as well....


No, the significance of 21 is that's the age Bagladeshi law says its citizenship lapses.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I want her tried in the country she committed the bulk of her crimes. That’s Syria or maybe Iraq.


How do you know she didn't commit the bulk of her crimes here? Abstraction of a passport, travelling on documents not her own, membership of a proscribed organisation - all committed before she left these shores. And I'm sure there's more


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

maomao said:


> And that's really where you want to dump a few jihadis at a loose end. A state in crisis without the resources to watch anyone and with an established jihadi culture.


He's not asked for that, though. Putting aside the wind-up stuff about bombing her, he's called for her to be tried locally. Were you so keen for Gary Glitter to be returned to the UK for trial, rather than dealt with in the jurisdictions in which he abused kids?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> How do you know she didn't commit the bulk of her crimes here? Abstraction of a passport, travelling on documents not her own, membership of a proscribed organisation - all committed before she left these shores. And I'm sure there's more


And indeed there is, Spymaster, theft and handling stolen goods.


----------



## keybored (Mar 11, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, the significance of 21 is that's the age Bagladeshi law says its citizenship lapses.


Isn't it "the right to claim citizenship lapses"?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

keybored said:


> Isn't it "the right to claim citizenship lapses"?


No. The citizenship itself lapses. This is a mistake that many seem to be making here.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> How do you know she didn't commit the bulk of her crimes here? Abstraction of a passport, travelling on documents not her own, membership of a proscribed organisation - all committed before she left these shores. And I'm sure there's more





Pickman's model said:


> And indeed there is, Spymaster, theft and handling stolen goods.


I think most reasonable people would consider the bulk of her crimes to be those that resulted in the most harm to the populations of the countries in which she's accused. In case of misunderstanding, that's certainly what I meant, and I think supporting genocide, rape, and enslavement, trumps anything she did here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I think most reasonable people would consider the bulk of her crimes to be those that resulted in the most harm to the populations of the countries in which she's accused. In case of misunderstanding, that's certainly what I meant, and I think supporting genocide, rape, and enslavement, trumps anything she did here.


is there a crime of 'supporting genocide' in the uk? or - for that matter - in iraq or syria? or supporting rape or supporting enslavement?


----------



## maomao (Mar 11, 2019)

It's all very well saying try her in Syria and no-one here has contested that idea but it's far from a certainty that that's possible at the moment. She's in the hands of the SDF who are currently threatening to release several thousand ISIS combatants and others unless the west repatriate them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

maomao said:


> no-one here has contested that idea


except for people saying bring her back here and let her rot in jail.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> is there a crime of 'supporting genocide' in the uk? or - for that matter - in iraq or syria? or supporting rape or supporting enslavement?


Possibly but I wouldn’t hold out much hope of her facing them, if they existed. Apart from that, the Iraqi and Syrian populations are the people who have been most harmed by her actions. That’s where she should face justice.


----------



## maomao (Mar 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> except for people saying bring her back here and let her rot in jail.


To be precise. Several people have ignored the possibility but nobody has specifically said try her here rather than Syria when confronted with that argument.

And unless Syria/the SDF decide on death for everyone involved surely there's the possibility of release at some point in the future anyway.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

maomao said:


> To be precise. Several people have ignored the possibility but nobody has specifically said try her here rather than Syria when confronted with that argument.
> 
> And unless Syria/the SDF decide on death for everyone involved surely there's the possibility of release at some point in the future anyway.


more than several people have ignored the possibility, but in post 2567 i said 'it would send a better message if the people who do this fighters or not will be brought back and will rot in prison'.


----------



## maomao (Mar 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> more than several people have ignored the possibility, but in post 2567 i said 'it would send a better message if the people who do this fighters or not will be brought back and will rot in prison'.


Okay conceded. I ignore a lot of your posts anyway so that one may have passed me by.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

maomao said:


> It's all very well saying try her in Syria and no-one here has contested that idea but it's far from a certainty that that's possible at the moment. She's in the hands of the SDF who are currently threatening to release several thousand ISIS combatants and others unless the west repatriate them.


The SDF have already released a load of them ‘as a gesture of fraternity’ or something, saying they don’t have the resources to hold them indefinitely. What will likely happen is that they’ll be supplied resources, but yes, I’d tend to agree with you that these aren’t the people we need on the case. France are allowing many of their nationals to be tried in Iraq. I’m pretty sure we could legally do the same.


----------



## maomao (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> France are allowing many of their nationals to be tried in Iraq. I’m pretty sure we could legally do the same.


How? When we've 'cancelled' her citizenship?


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. The citizenship itself lapses. This is a mistake that many seem to be making here.



No. It's that automatic citizenship (by virtue of having a Bagladeshi parent) lapses.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

Athos said:


> No. It's that automatic citizenship (by virtue of having a Bagladeshi parent) lapses.


Sure, but in the absence of a formal application to retain it, the whole thing (i.e. her Bangladeshi citizenship) lapses.


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Sure, but in the absence of a formal application to retain it, the whole thing (i.e. her Bangladeshi citizenship) lapses.


Yes.  My point was that it's citizenship, not a right to claim citizenship, that lapses.  I'd meant to quote keybored, not you!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

maomao said:


> How? When we've 'cancelled' her citizenship?


I'm not sure how the French have done it, or anyone else. They've all be revoking the citizenships of dual nationals, it's not just the UK. I'm pretty sure that the French are actually allowing their _sole_ nationals to be tried in Iraq too though. I would assume that the way we would do it in the cases of stripped individuals would be to just let it happen but the issue would be in getting them to Iraq from where they are now. What is almost certain to be happening is that the governments of all the western countries with prisoners out there will be talking to the SDF and local authorities about what to do with them. My hunch is that the SDF will be paid on the qt to maintain the current facilities indefinitely with some kind of oversight and perhaps this is where the prisoner disturbances that butchersapron has posted about will be catalysed.


----------



## keybored (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No. The citizenship itself lapses. This is a mistake that many seem to be making here.



I won't be able to link to it till later but citizenship isn't usually bestowed automatically is it? A Bangledish government site seemed to say in the case of a child born abroad to at least one Bangladeshi parent the birth has to be registered at a local Bangladesh consulate, unless the parent works for the Bangladesh government (in which case citizenship is automatic). Were either of those the case? Apols if this has been covered already.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes.  My point was that it's citizenship, not a right to claim citizenship, that lapses.  I'd meant to quote keybored, not you!


You made me read my own post half a dozen times wondering what I'd got wrong.


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You made me read my own post half a dozen times wondering what I'd got wrong.


Soz.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

keybored said:


> I won't be able to link to it till later but citizenship isn't usually bestowed automatically is it? A Bangledish government site seemed to say in the case of a child born abroad to at least one Bangladeshi parent the birth has to be registered at a local Bangladesh consulate, unless the parent works for the Bangladesh government (in which case citizenship is automatic). Were either of those the case? Apols if this has been covered already.


Athos posted all the law back in the thread (from about page 75 onwards, I think).


----------



## keybored (Mar 11, 2019)

Citizenship Act, 1951 (Act No. II of 1951).

Section 5



> 5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 1[ father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Athos posted all the law back in the thread (from about page 75 onwards, I think).





Athos said:


> I'm no expert on Bangladeshi law, but I'm not sure you're right.   See s.5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended).  It does not include and requirement of application or registration that you seem to be claiming:
> 
> 5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 4[ father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
> 
> ...





Athos said:


> Strictly speaking, he's following the rule of law (specifically s.40 British Nationality Act 1948). I think the question is whether it's a good law and/or whether the discretion it provides is used in a discriminatory fashion.


----------



## keybored (Mar 11, 2019)

Ignore that, I missed the bit that said it applied to children of citizens by descent


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

keybored said:


> Ignore that, I missed the bit that said it applied to children of citizens by descent


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

keybored said:


> Citizenship Act, 1951 (Act No. II of 1951).
> 
> Section 5


This bit rules out that requirement in Begum's case:


> Provided that if the 2[ father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only ...


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

keybored said:


> Ignore that, I missed the bit that said it applied to children of citizens by descent


Yes.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> more than several people have ignored the possibility, but in post 2567 i said 'it would send a better message if the people who do this fighters or not will be brought back and will rot in prison'.


The other problem with trying her here is that she'd likely only be done for membership of a proscribed organisation, if anything at all, which carries a maximum 10 years sentence. Even if she got the max, which I doubt would happen (most of the bleeding hearts here just want to put her through one of those famously successful deradicalisation programs) she'd only serve 5 years and she's done far more than just 'held membership of a proscribed organisation'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The other problem with trying her here is that she'd likely only be done for membership of a proscribed organisation, if anything at all, which carries a maximum 10 years sentence. Even if she got the max, which I doubt would happen (most of the bleeding hearts here just want to put her through one of those famously successful deradicalisation programs) she'd only serve 5 years and she's done far more than just 'held membership of a proscribed organisation'.


i would expect that being as she would, on any release, be treated as a centre of pestilence whether she was rehabilitated or not that though the incarceration might have ended the court of public opinion would have condemned her to a rather longer penalty


----------



## xenon (Mar 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You know that's disingenuous bollocks, yes?



It's not though. Under Bangladeshi law, she's a citizen of that country. Other nations have similar laws.

It hasn't been over turned in court, this is the current legal situation. TO argue otherwise is just wilful ignorance, dence or mendatious. Don't get me wrong, I still think it was a rather synical move by the home secretary to remove her British citizenship. (She's not the first though.)


----------



## xenon (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> ... and again, she did not chose to be a Bangladeshi citizen; she was (is) a British citizen.  That the law over there would consider her to be one is immaterial, because she doesn't consider herself to be one.




You don't need to choose to be a citizen of somewhere. Did I choose British citizenship. Look it's a shitty thing Javid has done but this gainsaying of the actual law that confirs upon her Bangladeshi citizenship is just inaccurate and pointless.


----------



## xenon (Mar 11, 2019)

Anyway CBA with this.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

xenon said:


> It's not though. Under Bangladeshi law, she's a citizen of that country. Other nations have similar laws.
> 
> It hasn't been over turned in court, this is the current legal situation. TO argue otherwise is just wilful ignorance, dence or mendatious. Don't get me wrong, I still think it was a rather synical move by the home secretary to remove her British citizenship. (She's not the first though.)


This is the "I've got my fingers in my ears, lalalalala" thread!


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> This is the "I've got my fingers in my ears, lalalalala" thread!


if anyone doubts Spymaster i can comfirm he often types his posts with his nose, while placing his fingers in his ears and shouting 'i can't hear you la la la'


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> No it didn’t. You have got this the wrong way around.



No, I haven't.  The Home Office originally thought this applied to all Bangladeshis (and stripped citizenship on that basis), until the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission found otherwise in the case that Athos posted above.  When this appeal gets there, we could well find out that they can't do this either (at least in these circumstances).


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> No, I haven't.  The Home Office originally thought this applied to all Bangladeshis (and stripped citizenship on that basis), until the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission found otherwise in the case that Athos posted above.  When this appeal gets there, we could well find out that they can't do this either (at least in these circumstances).



You said "the distinction over 21 came as the result of them losing a court case". That is the wrong way around. They lost the case _because_ the distinction (provision) already existed in Bangladeshi law, that automatic citizenship lapses at that age unless applied for. You misunderstood this before. That's not the case with Begum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You said "the distinction over 21 came as the result of them losing a court case". That is the wrong way around. They lost the case _because_ the distinction (provision) already existed in Bangladeshi law, that automatic citizenship lapses at that age unless applied for. You misunderstood this before. That's not the case with Begum.


You're still missing the point. You need to point to cases other than those of the blokes who successfully appealed on the basis that they were over 21. Those cases didn't test ideas they didn't need to test. They were simple cases because, very simply, it was found that Bangladeshi law did not consider them citizens. That's it. Case dismissed at that point. 

A case brought by someone like Begum would not be using that argument. It would be making a more complex argument more dangerous to the case that wasn't used before for good reason. This would be a test of UK law and whether or not UK citizenship decisions can be made in light of a situation of which neither the defendant nor the second country in question are even aware, a situation that effectively turns a bunch of British people into second-class citizens without them even knowing it on the basis of their parents' place of birth. You will need to show a case in which that argument has been put and lost, not a case of people who could rely on other arguments.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're still missing the point. You need to point to cases other than those of the blokes who successfully appealed on the basis that they were over 21. Those cases didn't test ideas they didn't need to test. They were simple cases because, very simply, it was found that Bangladeshi law did not consider them citizens. That's it. Case dismissed at that point .


I am not missing any points. You are. Go back and read Athos’ responses to you yesterday. If Begum manages to appeal this on some other basis, so be it. But on the basis of the law under discussion (your assertion that the Hime Iffice have illegally made her stateless because she’s not a dual national) you are wrong and they have acted within the law. You’re the one trying to pull some spurious IF out of your backside so it falls to you to example its basis in case law; not me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 11, 2019)

Auld himey iffice always gets the blame


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I am not missing any points. You are. Go back and read Athos’ responses to you yesterday. If Begum manages to appeal this on some other basis, so be it. But on the basis of the law under discussion (your assertion that the Hime Iffice have illegally made her stateless because she’s not a dual national) you are wrong and they have acted within the law. You’re the one trying to pull some spurious IF out of your backside so it falls to you to outline its basis.



They haven't acted within the law, though.  They have acted based on decisions made in other cases that they think would apply here; if Begum wins the case then there is a very good chance they won't act like this again.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> They haven't acted within the law, though.


Then show us which bit of law they have acted without.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Then show us which bit of law they have acted without.



That is for the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission to determine.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> That is for the Special Immigration and Appeals Commission to determine.


So your position is “they’ve acted illegally but I can’t say why or point to any law to substantiate this”.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> They haven't acted within the law, though.  They have acted based on decisions made in other cases that they think would apply here.


No they haven’t.

They have asked on the basis that by  Bangladeshi law she is a citizen of that nation until she is 21.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> So your position is “they’ve acted illegally but I can’t say why or point to any law to substantiate this”.



No, my position is that relying on the Home Office's definition of what is legally sound is daft when that position is based on a case where they tried to defend another position, which was found to be illegal.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> No, my position is that relying on the Home Office's definition of what is legally sound is daft when that position is based on a case where they tried to defend another position, which was found to be illegal.




Yes. They are also just banking that none of those they remove citizenship from are able to resource a legal challenge. It's another example of the HO and the cuntish way they operate. It's a calculated risk that they think they will get away with. Just like the despicable shit they have pulled with the Windrush generation and children.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> No, my position is that relying on the Home Office's definition of what is legally sound is daft when that position is based on a case where they tried to defend another position, which was found to be illegal.


For fucks sake man, the case the Home Office lost has absolutely no bearing on this one. It is not the basis of anything that’s going on here. Why don’t you get this?


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> For fucks sake man, the case the Home Office lost has absolutely no bearing on this one. It is not the basis of anything that’s going on here. Why don’t you get this?



Not sure how that case has absolutely no bearing on that one when you've been pointing to what it said for several pages.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> Not sure how that case has absolutely no bearing on that one when you've been pointing to what it said for several pages.


Only to refute your position. Christ you’re a disingenuous fellow. I’ve never noticed this before.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Only to refute your position. Christ you’re a disingenuous fellow. I’ve never noticed this before.



I must be to think that the decision in that case (over stripping two British people of their citizenship because the HO thought their Bangladeshi descent made them Bangladeshi citizens) is of any relevance to this case (over they stripped one British person of their citizenship because the HO thought her Bangladeshi descent made her a Bangladeshi citizen).


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> I must be to think that the decision in that case (over stripping two British people of their citizenship because the HO thought their Bangladeshi descent made them Bangladeshi citizens) is of any relevance to this case (over they stripped one British person of their citizenship because the HO thought her Bangladeshi descent made her a Bangladeshi citizen).


More snidery. You’ve said flat out that the removal of Begum’s citizenship is based on the case that the home office lost. That’s complete nonsense and I think you now realise that and are trying it on.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> More snidery. You’ve said flat out that the removal of Begum’s citizenship is based on the case that the home office lost. That’s complete nonsense and I think you now realise that and are trying it on.



No, I said that it (the policy around the removal of Begum's citizenship) was based on decisions made in individual cases, of which this was one.  If SIAC decides this is illegal as well, then that will sort of settle this debate, won't it?


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> If SIAC decides this is illegal as well, then that will sort of settle this debate, won't it?



Yes, subect to any appeals.

Is it your position that there is a sound legal (rather than moral, political, or practical) basis upon which the court should decide that Javid has acted unlawfully?  If so, what is it?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> No, I said that it (the policy around the removal of Begum's citizenship) was based on decisions made in individual cases, of which this was one.



Do you agree that Bangladeshi law states that she is a citizen of their country until she is 21?


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, subect to any appeals.
> 
> Is it your position that there is a sound legal (rather than moral, political, or practical) basis upon which the court should decide that Javid has acted unlawfully?  If so, what is it?



For a start, what it is she has actually done that legitimizes the removal of her citizenship now rather than at any point in the three years previous to this.  Secondly, whether the existence of a line in Bangladeshi law that implies she is a citizen justifies the removal of her citizenship in her case (when there is very little connection to Bangladesh), and whether that is proportionate given the people affected by it (those 20 and younger) would tend to be those who were less of a threat than older people to whom this provision doesn't apply.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> For a start, what it is she has actually done that legitimizes the removal of her citizenship now rather than at any point in the three years previous to this.  Secondly, whether the existence of a line in Bangladeshi law that implies she is a citizen justifies the removal of her citizenship in her case (when there is very little connection to Bangladesh), and whether that is proportionate given the people affected by it (those 20 and younger) would tend to be those who were less of a threat than older people to whom this provision doesn't apply.


That's not an answer to the question is it?


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> That's not an answer to the question is it?



Sorry, establishing the actual reasons for her removal isn't a sound legal basis on which the Court could decide that Javid has acted unlawfully?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> Sorry, establishing the actual reasons for her removal isn't a sound legal basis on which the Court could decide that Javid has acted unlawfully?



Answer the question and then we can move on to that.




			
				Athos said:
			
		

> Is it your position that there is a sound legal (rather than moral, political, or practical) basis upon which the court should decide that Javid has acted unlawfully? If so, what is it?



It's what you and I are disagreeing about here. littlebabyjesus might want to have a go at it too.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Do you agree that Bangladeshi law states that she is a citizen of their country until she is 21?



Bangladeshi law states anyone who is a child of a Bangladeshi national is a citizen of their country (qualified by the need to clarify their status at 21).  

The point is that just because it says that, it isn't sufficient to justify removing someone's citizenship of a country where they were born, raised and educated.


----------



## agricola (Mar 11, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Answer the question and then we can move on to that.



I just did.


----------



## Athos (Mar 11, 2019)

agricola said:


> For a start, what it is she has actually done that legitimizes the removal of her citizenship now rather than at any point in the three years previous to this.



Ok, so with reference to the relevant law, s.40 British Nationlity Act 1981, is it your suggestion that the the SoS currently has insufficient grounds to be satisfied that deprivation of her British citizenship is conducive to the public good (as required by subsection 2)?  (I'm not sure what the significance* of him not having done so sooner is; the statute provides him a power to act, rather than imposing a duty on him to act as soon as a certain threshld is met. ETA: *By which I mean legal significance; obviously the timing coinciding with press interests suggests it's cyical bit of populism.)



agricola said:


> Secondly, whether the existence of a line in Bangladeshi law that implies she is a citizen justifies the removal of her citizenship in her case (when there is very little connection to Bangladesh), and whether that is proportionate given the people affected by it (those 20 and younger) would tend to be those who were less of a threat than older people to whom this provision doesn't apply.



I guess there's two issues here.  The first is that deprivation of her British ctizenship is _prima facie_ a breach of her human rights e.g. the right to a family life as protected by article 8 of ECHR.  Which gives rise to the question of whether such a breach can be lawful, and in what circumstances.  (I can see no other basis for the issue of justification you mention, beyond human rights; there's no such balancing act required in the statute, for example.)

The second part is question of Bangladeshi law, which the UK courts will treat as a matter of fact; they don't get to decide whether or not it is good law, but only how it would be applied by Bangladeshi courts.


So, if i've understood right, you suggest there's a sound legal basis for a court to hold Javid's actions unlawful on the basis that: first, there are insufficient grounds for him to conclude that depriation of her British ctizenship is conducive to the public good; and, secondly, that depriving her of citizenship is an unlawful breach of her human rights, which cannot be justified on the grounds of proportionality?  (I note that the thrust of your argument isn't actually to take isue with the fact that she is a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladesh law.)

If so, I would I say it's not impossible that a court would ultimately reach that conclusion (these are certainly more cogent legal challenges than some of the nonsense others on this thread have posited), but that, given we have no idea what evidence or intelligence he has based his decision on, it's impossible for us to say at this stage that he has acted unlawfully (though we can agree that it's poor decision for a number of moral and practical reasons, and suspect that he's willing to play fast and loose with the law safe in the knowledge that it'll be practically very difficult for her to challenge him, and, in any event, it'll have been politically expedient for him to have appeared tough even f he ultimately loses).  For what it's worth, if we're speculating about ways the SoS may have acted unlawfully, it's also possible that he's failed to comly with the procedural requirements of subsection 5.

I don't actually think we're that far apart: we both think it's a poor decision, and would both be happy to see it face a legal challenge; the difference is you seem to have more confidence in it's success than I do (because I recognse that we've not seen the evidence).  (We may also disgree about our feelings for her; I hve no sympathy for her whatsoever, and couldn't care less if she rots where she is, for her own sake).


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 12, 2019)

Athos said:


> Ok, so with reference to the relevant law, s.40 British Nationlity Act 1981, is it your suggestion that the the SoS currently has insufficient grounds to be satisfied that deprivation of her British citizenship is conducive to the public good (as required by subsection 2)?  (I'm not sure what the significance* of him not having done so sooner is; the statute provides him a power to act, rather than imposing a duty on him to act as soon as a certain threshld is met. ETA: *By which I mean legal significance; obviously the timing coinciding with press interests suggests it's cyical bit of populism.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Fucking hell; talk about chucking someone a few lifelines. That’s a whole raft! 

But yes, of course there may be positions _other than the ones he was arguing_ _previously_ (among others that Bangladeshi citizenship had to be claimed by under 21s, and that Begum’s case is based on law from the dismissals) in which the decision gets overturned. As I said, if so, so be it, but there’s been some serious goalpost shifting going on here today, eh agricola?


----------



## A380 (Mar 25, 2019)

If there were a hell I’d be going.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 15, 2019)

So, she's got legal aid to challenge the very complex, semi-secret appeal. That's fine with me, these things should be conducted properly.

What's not so OK here are reports that she wasn't quite the stay-at-home mum she's painted herself out as. As in she spent her time with IS sewing martyrs in to suicide vests and toting an AK47 whilst strutting around enforcing 'morality standards'.

If that's true, I don't want her anywhere near here, or Bangladesh. She should be at the end of a rope in Iraq.


----------



## LDC (Apr 15, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So, she's got legal aid to challenge the very complex, semi-secret appeal. That's fine with me, these things should be conducted properly.
> 
> What's not so OK here are reports that she wasn't quite the stay-at-home mum she's painted herself out as. As in she spent her time with IS sewing martyrs in to suicide vests and toting an AK47 whilst strutting around enforcing 'morality standards'.
> 
> If that's true, I don't want her anywhere near here, or Bangladesh. She should be at the end of a rope in Iraq.



Where's that info sourced from?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Apr 15, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Where's that info sourced from?



Google her name + suicide vest for numerous links, Mail, Independent, Mirror etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 16, 2019)

So she helped kill ISIS fighters then?


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 16, 2019)

A380 said:


> View attachment 165567
> 
> If there were a hell I’d be going.


I'll save you a good seat by the fire


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 16, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> So she helped kill ISIS fighters then?



Only the ones who had committed thought crimes.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 16, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Where's that info sourced from?


Pearl clutching by Begum's supporters drawing attention to the fact that this new stuff seems to be illegally leaked information gathered by the security services. These will of course be the same people who delighted in sensitive information being leaked by Saints Manning and Assange.


----------



## rekil (Apr 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Pearl clutching by Begum's supporters drawing attention to the fact that this new stuff seems to be illegally leaked information gathered by the security services. These will of course be the same people who delighted in sensitive information being leaked by Saints Manning and Assange.


The telegraph journo says she got her info from an org who had members living under isis and documented violations.



Spoiler


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 16, 2019)

Syria and Iraq are a total mess wrt this stuff at the moment. People denouncing others left right and centre with various motivations. I'm not saying she wasn't a self-righteous little fucker during her stay with ISIS - be surprised if she wasn't - but this is about as unreliable as information gets.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 16, 2019)

copliker said:


> The telegraph journo says she got her info from an org who had members living under isis and documented violations.
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler



Yeah, it's the slug's lawyer bringing it up:


> He said he expected there to be a legal challenge, arguing that Begum should be able to return to the UK to fight the case in order to have a fair hearing.
> 
> Several newspapers at the weekend carried reports, which Akunjee said were based on intelligence sent to the Home Office and Downing Street, alleging that Begum was an enforcer working with the Isis morality police and had supposedly sewed up suicide bombers’ vests.
> 
> “I would question how that has come into the public arena and whether the Official Secrets Act has been breached,” Akunjee said.



All of a sudden breaches of the OSA become important.

Cunt. You couldn't make it up!


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 16, 2019)

And of course she shouldn't be able to come to Britain to challenge the decision. If she loses where does she get deported to?


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2019)

i'm given to understand that the Iraqi's have offered the same deal they did with the French to other nations - we'll rid you of these _turbulent priests_ in return for hard cash.

how sad that she's not made it to Iraq...


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> And of course she shouldn't be able to come to Britain to challenge the decision. If she loses where does she get deported to?


British Antarctic Territory


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> British Antarctic Territory



South Sandwich Islands to be specific - she could start the quarrying.

Fingernails, or a glass chisel?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> South Sandwich Islands to be specific - she could start the quarrying.
> 
> Fingernails, or a glass chisel?


No, there's a need for someone to reconnoitre a route from british antarctic base halley to the south pole which will be for the first polar dual carriageway. She will receive a crash-course in surveying and a sled packed with supplies.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> No, there's a need for someone to reconnoitre a route from british antarctic base halley to the south pole which will be for the first polar dual carriageway. She will receive a crash-course in surveying and a sled packed with supplies.



with one of the sleds' ropes slightly longer than the other so she goes round in a massive circle?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> with one of the sleds' ropes slightly longer than the other so she goes round in a massive circle?


No, the road must be built. However, no one at the british antarctic survey has any desire to do the legwork for it so an internship has opened up. As it will be a road for electrical vehicles, to avoid polluting Antarctica, it will be given the designation e1, although some wits at bas hq have already termed it e begum.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> No, the road must be built. However, no one at the british antarctic survey has any desire to do the legwork for it so an internship has opened up. As it will be a road for electrical vehicles, to avoid polluting Antarctica, it will be given the designation e1, although some wits at bas hq have already termed it e begum.



i enjoy your practicality and admire your desire to provide _former people_ with some form of redemption through their hopefully fatal toil in the Antarctic, but is that hope of redemption - even if only in their minds eye - really appropriate for these particular classes of_ former people?
_
perhaps some academic work focusing on how long someone equipped only with a £5 plastic poncho, a bic lighter, two mars bars and a pack of Haribo, and clad in jeans and a t-shirt, can survive on Split Island in the Falklands?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i enjoy your practicality and admire your desire to provide _former people_ with some form of redemption through their hopefully fatal toil in the Antarctic, but is that hope of redemption - even if only in their minds eye - really appropriate for these particular classes of_ former people?
> _
> perhaps some academic work focusing on how long someone equipped only with a £5 plastic poncho, a bic lighter, two mars bars and a pack of Haribo, and clad in jeans and a t-shirt, can survive on Split Island in the Falklands?


That's a lot of plastic pollution for former members of national action to be given

No lighter. Two dry sticks and a pinch of kindling. 
No poncho but a duffle coat. 
No Mars bars but a small tin of kendal mint cake. 
No haribo but a quarter of aniseed balls..


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> That's a lot of plastic pollution for former members of national action to be given



true.

ok, naked people - or people in those paper forensic suits?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> true.
> 
> ok, naked people - or people in those paper forensic suits?


See my edit. Duffle coat, canvas trousers, flannel shirt and Wellington boots.

They can be laundered and then given to subsequent former people from national action and generation identity. Oh they'll also get a can of spam and a pair of chopsticks


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ...Oh they'll also get a can of spam....



with key or without?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2019)

kebabking said:


> with key or without?


There will be a key and the test will be to find it before they starve complete the residency on the island


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 16, 2019)

The right-on brigade will be along to tell you two off soon.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 16, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The right-on brigade will be along to tell you two off soon.



_Guardian _readers? I shit 'em....


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2019)

kebabking said:


> _Guardian _readers? I shit 'em....


Sounds like one of those urban dictionary perversions


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 23, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The right-on brigade will be along to tell you two off soon.


Taps watch


----------



## A380 (Apr 24, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ...As it will be a road for electrical vehicles, to avoid polluting Antarctica, it will be given the designation e1, although some wits at bas hq have already termed it e begum.



I heard it was being called ‘Roadie Mc-mad-fucking extremist-face’.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 24, 2019)

A380 said:


> I heard it was being called ‘Roadie Mc-mad-fucking extremist-face’.


Ah, you've been talking to the Attenborough faction


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2019)

She was groomed, her lawyer says so. Shamima Begum was 'groomed', says lawyer


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

hash tag said:


> She was groomed, her lawyer says so. Shamima Begum was 'groomed', says lawyer



After Johnson can we go after lawyers for telling porkies too?


----------



## maomao (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> After Johnson can we go after lawyers for telling porkies too?


What does that mean? Are you denying that there was adult involvement, denying that that adult involvement could amount to coercion or what? How do you know?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

maomao said:


> What does that mean? Are you denying that there was adult involvement, denying that that adult involvement could amount to coercion or what? How do you know?



I’m saying it is the lawyer who says she was groomed. What are his qualifications in that area? Or is it his job to say any old bollocks he thinks may be beneficial to his client? 

Seriously getting fed up with these legal cunts and their shite. It’s trite and meaningless yet is being reported as fact.


----------



## hash tag (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> After Johnson can we go after lawyers for telling porkies too?



Two for one; Fiona Onasanya.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 31, 2019)

Tbh thought the lawyer had a point that after first girl went to Syria and TH intervened without involving parents or court of protection it basically sent a signal to the three to go to Syria sharpish. Question of their own agency separate to this of course, but a fuck up


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 31, 2019)

Blates groomed but blaming the filth for it is a bit of flailing from her brief


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Tbh thought the lawyer had a point that after first girl went to Syria and TH intervened without involving parents or court of protection it basically sent a signal to the three to go to Syria sharpish. Question of their own agency separate to this of course, but a fuck up



They did interview her, but short of locking up everyone in that school wtf are they supposed to do? 

The family are bleating that they would have done something had they known, but they did know her mate had gone, but as her dad had previously taken her to some Choudary events it makes me question just how many fucks they gave.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 31, 2019)

Well maybe but when the three went TH involved court of protection for remaining four of the group - which they could have done sooner. They left the UK on their own passports...


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 31, 2019)

I cannot blame the lawyer for trying every trick in the book - it is what he is paid for- but trying to push this into anyone else is hyperbolic


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 31, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Well maybe but when the three went TH involved court of protection for remaining four of the group - which they could have done sooner. *They left the UK on their own passports*...



BIB - Shamima Begum used her older sister's passport.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 31, 2019)

Ah yeah I'd forgotten that, sorry


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> They did interview her, but short of locking up everyone in that school wtf are they supposed to do?
> 
> The family are bleating that they would have done something had they known, but they did know her mate had gone, but as her dad had previously taken her to some Choudary events it makes me question just how many fucks they gave.



I've said consistently I blame the parents.  If there was any grooming it was by shitty parenting.  They're the ones who should be in jail.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> I've said consistently I blame the parents.  If there was any grooming it was by shitty parenting.  They're the ones who should be in jail.



Can't bang the dad up, he lives in Bangladesh these days. A country she has no connection with


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Of course the lawyer would say she was groomed. But, as far as I can tell, he's not provided a shred of evidence to support the assertion in his lengthy letter.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Can't bang the dad up, he lives in Bangladesh these days. A country she has no connection with


Lots of British people have one or two parents that were born elsewhere. Did it ever become clear whether she has ever even been to Bangladesh?

I have little sympathy for her but this nonsense about becoming the responsibility of your parent/s homeland is a slippery, really nasty slope.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Lots of British people have one or two parents that were born elsewhere. Did it ever become clear whether she has ever even been to Bangladesh?
> 
> I have little sympathy for her but this nonsense about becoming the responsibility of your parent/s homeland is a slippery, really nasty slope.



It was a dig at all the crap that about how she has no connection to that country, when her dad moved over there once she joined Islamic State, clearly making that no-connection claim false.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> .. this nonsense about becoming the responsibility of your parent/s homeland is a slippery, really nasty slope.



It's Bangladesh that says she's a Bangladeshi citizen, no one in the UK has decided that for them.

If they choose not to be particularly fussy about who is given Bangladeshi citizenship, that's their look out...


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It's Bangladesh that says she's a Bangladeshi citizen, no one in the UK has decided that for them.
> 
> If they choose not to be particularly fussy about who is given Bangladeshi citizenship, that's their look out...


Have they? Since when? They were unequivocal about her not being their responsibility last I heard.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It was a dig at all the crap that about how she has no connection to that country, when her dad moved over there once she joined Islamic State, clearly making that no-connection claim false.



I hear ya but I am against where that kind of tenuous 'connecting' can lead.

'Go back to where you come from' has been common abuse  thrown  at many who are born and bred Brits for example.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Have they? Since when? They were unequivocal about her not being their responsibility last I heard.



If the Bangladeshi Government chooses not to grasp Bangladeshi law then that's hardly anyone elses problem.

They can say what they like, she's a Bangladeshi citizen - had she reached the age of 21 with her UK citizenship intact then she would cease to be a Bangladeshi citizen on her 21st birthday and solely be a UK citizen, but that's not how it worked out, and now she's Bangladesh's problem.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2019)

Good grief...ground hog day. Nope. They have been clear, just as the UK has, she isn't their problem at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> It's Bangladesh that says she's a Bangladeshi citizen, no one in the UK has decided that for them.
> 
> If they choose not to be particularly fussy about who is given Bangladeshi citizenship, that's their look out...


That's rubbish and you know it. People in the UK looked very hard to find a bit of Bangladeshi law they could use to disown her. Nobody from Bangladesh did that.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

There's a difference between what a Bangladeshi law says and what Bangladeshi politicians claim.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's rubbish and you know it. People in the UK looked very hard to find a bit of Bangladeshi law they could use to disown her. Nobody from Bangladesh did that.



Except the successive generations of Bagladeshi law makers who enacted that law/declined to repeal/amend it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> Except the successive generations of Bagladeshi law makers who enacted that law/declined to repeal/amend it.


Not going to repeat the argument.  See my previous responses to this point. This is about UK justice and equality not Bangladeshi law.


----------



## LDC (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is about UK justice and equality not Bangladeshi law.



For me it's mostly about justice for the people where she has lived the last few years.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

If we put aside the capricious use of the powers for selfish reasons, as things stand, generally it's a question for 'the UK' as to whether a two-tier citizenship (with its inherent unfairness and all the messages that sends) is outweighed by the value in the Home Sec being able to exclude some dual citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism, to protect British citizens.  Or whether there is a viable third option, which allows the government to protect citizens without creating second-class Brits.  (Which is different from the specifics of her case.)


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not going to repeat the argument.  See my previous responses to this point. This is about UK justice and equality not Bangladeshi law.



The application of UK law turns (in part) on Bagladeshi law, in this instance. 

Whether UK law embodies justice and equality is another question, of course. 

But I think there's some value in recognising that they're two separate questions.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's rubbish and you know it. People in the UK looked very hard to find a bit of Bangladeshi law they could use to disown her. Nobody from Bangladesh did that.



so they're negligent?


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> so they're negligent?



Unless it’s gamesmanship.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2019)

'Can't understand their own laws'
'Their politicians are dodgey and are not following their laws'

Thickos that they are right? 

There is more than an air of superiority in those kinds of arguments...the UK would and is doing exactly the same thing.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Good grief...ground hog day. Nope. They have been clear, just as the UK has, she isn't their problem at all.



then they ought to take a closer look at what Bangladeshi law says - not, of course, that i'm particularly interested in a legal squabble between a Bangladeshi citisen living in Syria and the Bangladeshi government. such circumstances are perhaps the living embodiment of the sentiment _not my problem_....


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2019)

Thickos... don't know their own laws'. Right.

They know their laws,  regardless they have zero obligation to take her in , just as Britain doesn't want her back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Kebabking isn't that thick. He knows full well what is dodgy about this. Using The Law to justify shitty actions is a cunt's trick. Anyone defending it should have a word with themselves.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> They know their laws,  regardless they have zero obligation to take her in...



On what basis do you assert this, with reference to Bangladeshi law? Or are you just choosing to take some Bangladeshi MPs at their word?  If so, why?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> They know their laws,  regardless they have zero obligation to take her in , just as Britain doesn't want her back.



Iraq will take her. And in spite of a life-long opposition to the death penalty I am happy to go with the doublethink the French government are going through this week on this; We are opposed to the death penalty in all cases/it is a sovereign matter for Iraq.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Thickos... don't know their own laws'. Right.
> 
> They know their laws,  regardless they have zero obligation to take her in , just as Britain doesn't want her back.



i don't think Bangladeshi politicians or civil servants are remotely thick, i think they know _absolutely _that she is a Bangladeshi citizen by right in Bangladeshi law - they don't like it, which is understandable, and they hope that by saying 'nope, she's not', she and her lawyers will fuck off somewhere else. 

Bangladeshi law is quite clear that they _do_ have an obligation to take her in, and one can only assume that the Bangladeshi body politic hasn't chosen to amend their citizenship laws so as to reduce ther liability to take such former dual citizens because they find they believe that the inherited citizenship principle works out, over all, to the countrys benefit.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Lots of British people have one or two parents that were born elsewhere. Did it ever become clear whether she has ever even been to Bangladesh?
> 
> I have little sympathy for her but this nonsense about becoming the responsibility of your parent/s homeland is a slippery, really nasty slope.


Boo boo. Guess what; you can stop it happening by not becoming a terrorist rape enabler.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Go back to where you come from' has been common abuse  thrown  at many who are born and bred Brits for example.


Yeah, cos that’s exactly what’s happening here


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> Good grief...ground hog day. Nope. They have been clear, just as the UK has, she isn't their problem at all.


Wrong. By Bangladeshi LAW she is a citizen of that country. They are choosing to say otherwise. 

Why don’t some people get this?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> 'Can't understand their own laws'
> 'Their politicians are dodgey and are not following their laws'
> 
> Thickos that they are right?
> ...



Possibly the most moronic post on the thread.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kebabking isn't that thick. He knows full well what is dodgy about this. Using The Law to justify shitty actions is a cunt's trick. Anyone defending it should have a word with themselves.


Good god. What bullshit.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i don't think Bangladeshi politicians or civil servants are remotely thick, i think they know _absolutely _that she is a Bangladeshi citizen by right in Bangladeshi law - they don't like it, which is understandable, and they hope that by saying 'nope, she's not', she and her lawyers will fuck off somewhere else.
> 
> Bangladeshi law is quite clear that they _do_ have an obligation to take her in, and one can only assume that the Bangladeshi body politic hasn't chosen to amend their citizenship laws so as to reduce ther liability to take such former dual citizens because they find they believe that the inherited citizenship principle works out, over all, to the countrys benefit.


It really is this simple.


----------



## xenon (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Kebabking isn't that thick. He knows full well what is dodgy about this. Using The Law to justify shitty actions is a cunt's trick. Anyone defending it should have a word with themselves.



I have misgivings about people being stripped of their citizenship but this isn't the first time it's happened whereby transgressors with dual citizenship have had their British one revoked. Like it or not the Bangladeshi law states she had Bangladeshi citizenship, no matter what their politicians subsequently claim. Yes, it's expedient and synical by Javid but this doesn't change the law their.

If they want to argue it in court, fine. Same as every other contested legal argument but let's not wave it away in some frankly patronising manner that their law doesn't really apply because you know, it's a bit naughty for someone to actually use it when deamed politically expedient.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

xenon said:


> I have misgivings about people being stripped of their citizenship but this isn't the first time it's happened whereby transgressors with dual citizenship have had their British one revoked. Like it or not the Bangladeshi law states she had Bangladeshi citizenship, no matter what their politicians subsequently claim. Yes, it's expedient and synical by Javid but this doesn't change the law their.
> 
> If they want to argue it in court, fine. Same as every other contested legal argument but let's not wave it away in some frankly patronising manner that their law doesn't really apply because you know, it's a bit naughty for someone to actually use it when deamed politically expedient.


Spot on. Except for the bit about Javid being cynical. He’s played an absolute blinder.


----------



## andysays (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It was a dig at all the crap that about how she has no connection to that country, when her dad moved over there once she joined Islamic State, clearly making that no-connection claim false.


It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that she has any real connection with Bangladeshi through her father's current residency, especially since he apparently moved after she left to join ISIS. 

Whatever one thinks of her actions and responsibility for them, using the actions of others to justify removing her British citizenship is bizarre.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Spot on. Except for the bit about Javid being cynical. He’s played an absolute blinder.



i think _cynical_ is a word used by pearl clutchers when both _unpopular _and _illegal_ don't work.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Spot on. Except for the bit about Javid being cynical. He’s played an absolute blinder.



I assume you mean he played an absolute blinder in terms of boosting his leadership credentials and profile?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I assume you mean he played an absolute blinder in terms of boosting his leadership credentials and profile?


Well of course you assume that. Duh!


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

andysays said:


> It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that she has any real connection with Bangladeshi through her father's current residency ...


Absolutely nobody has suggested this.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> I assume you mean he played an absolute blinder in terms of boosting his leadership credentials and profile?



do you think thats the only reason he did it?

assuming it doesn't all blow up in his face at a future appeal, he's done a competant job that prevented her from ever setting foot in the UK again. i'm happy for people who do competant work, on time, to get plaudits and be eligible for promotion...


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

andysays said:


> Whatever one thinks of her actions and responsibility for them, using the actions of others to justify removing her British citizenship is bizarre.



Eh? Wtf?  

Are you still asleep mate? Posting from dreamland?


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> do you think thats the only reason he did it?
> 
> assuming it doesn't all blow up in his face at a future appeal, he's done a competant job that prevented her from ever setting foot in the UK again. i'm happy for people who do competant work, on time, to get plaudits and be eligible for promotion...



Do you really have no qualms whatsoever about the repercussions of two-tier British citizenship, where two British people can receive vastly different treatment according to their heritage (and absent any conviction), and the social harm that might do (particularly when used inconsistently with more than a hint of expediency/populism)?


----------



## andysays (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely nobody has suggested this.


Except in the post I was responding to.

I understand that many here think that this young woman is the personification of evil incarnate, but it really seems like many of you are willing to suspend any ideas of fairness or due process in your desire to celebrate her current predicament.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> do you think thats the only reason he did it?
> 
> assuming it doesn't all blow up in his face at a future appeal, he's done a competant job that prevented her from ever setting foot in the UK again. i'm happy for people who do competant work, on time, to get plaudits and be eligible for promotion...



What? You mean scratching around for a get-out on intellectual law in order to play to the crowd?

I completely agreed with you that we have no duty whatsoever to rescue her from her situation, and also that the likelihood of her having operationally important information was close to nil,
 but to a lot of people Javid’s behaviour looks pretty squalid.

Still, I guess it proves the enduring viability of “going low”.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> Do you really have no qualms whatsoever about the repercussions of two-tier British citizenship, where two British people can receive vastly different treatment according to their heritage (and absent any conviction), and the social harm that might do?


I don't. 

Any negative repercussions can be smartly avoided by not joining rape and murder cults.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

andysays said:


> Except in the post I was responding to.


If that's what you think he meant, you've misunderstood his post.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don't.
> 
> Any negative repercussions can be smartly avoided by not joining rape and murder cults.



For that individual, maybe. But I was thinking about e.g. other Bagladeshi youths.  Does it send a message to them that they're not quite equal? And what harm might that do? Arguably making them more receptive to the extremists' message.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> Does it send a message to them that they're not quite equal?


I don't think so. 

It sends the message that if you join a terrorist outfit you are in a situation where you may well lose your UK citizenship. So don't. 

Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> For that individual, maybe.


These situations are few enough to be treated individually.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> It sends the message that if you join a terrorist outfit you are in a situation where you may well lose your UK citizenship. So don't.
> 
> Nothing wrong with that.





Spymaster said:


> These situations are few enough to be treated individually.



You're assuming the power will only be used in such circumstances.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> Do you really have no qualms whatsoever about the repercussions of two-tier British citizenship, where two British people can receive vastly different treatment according to their heritage (and absent any conviction), and the social harm that might do (particularly when used inconsistently with more than a hint of expediency/populism)?



no. (i am one).

people who are dual citizens have greater rights and opportunities than people who aren't - i can choose to emmigrate to two countries everyone else has to wade through treacle to get into, i can chose which passport i enter another country on which might well effect how i'm treated while i'm there, and i have the huge _privilage_ of not being trapped if it all goes tits up.

with those rights and opportunities comes a downside - the downside of _we don't like you anymore, you have somewhere else to go, you should go there_. i have, so far, managed to mitigate this downside by not joining a rape/slavery/murder cult or engaging in Treason, and have therefore avoided being hoofed out.


----------



## xenon (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i think _cynical_ is a word used by pearl clutchers when both _unpopular _and _illegal_ don't work.



Well, don't think I'm one of them.  That's not why I used synical. Rather it adds to his powerstance most dangerous street on Bristol hardman shtick and that's chiefly why he did it I reckon.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> You're assuming the power will only be used in such circumstances.


When it's used in others I may get cross about it. So far so good.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> When it's used in others I may get cross about it. So far so good.



First they came for the jihadi brides...


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> When it's used in others I may get cross about it. So far so good.



You can't be this naive.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> no. (i am one).
> 
> people who are dual citizens have greater rights and opportunities than people who aren't - i can choose to emmigrate to two countries everyone else has to wade through treacle to get into, i can chose which passport i enter another country on which might well effect how i'm treated while i'm there, and i have the huge _privilage_ of not being trapped if it all goes tits up.
> 
> with those rights and opportunities comes a downside - the downside of _we don't like you anymore, you have somewhere else to go, you should go there_. i have, so far, managed to mitigate this downside by not joining a rape/slavery/murder cult or engaging in Treason, and have therefore avoided being hoofed out.



I think that argument it's much more persuasive in respect of people who've actively sought dual citizenship.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> You can't be this naive.


Nothing naive about it. Read Kebabking's last post.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> I think that argument it's much more persuasive in respect of people who've actively sought dual citizenship.


Why? I too have a dual citizenship that I never sought. Many people do. It has (massive) benefits and a few minor drawbacks. All of the drawbacks can be avoided by not being a terrorist.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> What? You mean scratching around for a get-out on intellectual law in order to play to the crowd?
> 
> I completely agreed with you that we have no duty whatsoever to rescue her from her situation, and also that the likelihood of her having operationally important information was close to nil,
> but to a lot of people Javid’s behaviour looks pretty squalid.
> ...



again, i don't see the squalid thing. i just don't see anything squalid about removing - when possible - the citizenship of one who joins IS.

my only criticism is why it had to wait until she got into the papers when she was 19. i can see a very good reason why she was not stripped of her UK citizenship before she reached her 18th birthday and became, in the eyes of the law and society, a full grown adult responsible for her actions, but after that she was entirely fair game.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nothing naive about it. Read Kebabking's last post.



How is that relevant to the point?  As in Athos' actual point that you were responding to?

You're arguing in your usual red-blooded way, but I think if you put this particular case out of your mind and think about why certain laws are there in the first place (ones we have signed up to, which basically boil down to the commitment to sticking to principles even when they involve someone we don't like), then you'll see pretty quickly how the downsides follow.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> I think that argument it's much more persuasive in respect of people who've actively sought dual citizenship.



i didn't, i was born with it.

if this girl, now woman, had the mental develpment to be able to make choice about wanting to be an IS citizen, then she had the mental development to be able to make a choice about _not_ being a Bangladeshi citizen.

she would probably have needed a parent to sign the paperwork for her, but as she was adept at travelling on other peoples passports, she could probably have found a way around that little administrative problem...


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why? I too have a dual citizenship that I never sought. Many people do. It has (massive) benefits and a few minor drawbacks. All of the drawbacks can be avoided by not being a terrorist.



Because differential treatment of British citizens that's not based on anything they've done (to seek or assert dual citizenship) is socially corrosive.

Your position is like saying it doesn't matter if black men die disproportionately in prison; they can avoid it by not being criminals.  (Except at least they've had the benefit of a trial!)


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> again, i don't see the squalid thing. i just don't see anything squalid about removing - when possible - the citizenship of one who joins IS.



Oh, we've had a good many come back already.  It was when this became a "thing" in the media that this became an opportunity for Javid.

If there had been a debate about considering all British IS fighters as having renounced their citizenship (and it might have been easy enough to get a response from IS that they were citizens of the new "State), then that would have been a different thing to chew over, but this was selective hard-man posturing, mostly for those on the right.

The law about not making people stateless is as much about being responsible for what your citizens do, as any kind of duty of care.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i didn't, i was born with it.
> 
> if this girl, now woman, had the mental develpment to be able to make choice about wanting to be an IS citizen, then she had the mental development to be able to make a choice about _not_ being a Bangladeshi citizen.
> 
> she would probably have needed a parent to sign the paperwork for her, but as she was adept at travelling on other peoples passports, she could probably have found a way around that little administrative problem...



That assumes she knew she was a Bangladeshi citizen.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> How is that relevant to the point?  As in Athos' actual point that you were responding to?
> 
> You're arguing in your usual red-blooded way, but I think if you put this particular case out of your mind and think about why certain laws are there in the first place (ones we have signed up to, which basically boil down to the commitment to sticking to principles even when they involve someone we don't like), then you'll see pretty quickly how the downsides follow.


Ok. Dual citizenship laws have been in place for decades. 

Show us some examples where they've been used to unjustly deprive someone of nationality. This case obviously doesn't cpount.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Ok. Dual citizenship laws have been in place for decades.
> 
> Show us some examples where they've been used to unjustly deprive someone of nationality. This case obviously doesn't cpount.



I wasn't talking about dual citizenship laws, I was talking about the law about making someone stateless.
The dual citizenship was a loophole Javid had people scratch around for to avoid the usual commitments.  And there was no legal commitment to bring her back, so there was no functional difference in result.  Aside from feeding Javid's hardman fantasies, the main outcome was just to establish a lever and precedent for making people stateless.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> That assumes she knew she was a Bangladeshi citizen.



sorry Athos, she lived in an overwhelmingly Bangladeshi area, all her friends were of Bangladeshi heritage, her family (obviously) are Bangladeshi and indeed her old boy subsequently fucked off to live in Bangladesh - you can, if you want, try to persaude me that no one she she knew knew that children of Bangladeshi citizens are also Bangladeshi citizens with the right to live in Bangladesh, and that none of them ever mentioned it, but you'd be best off saving your breath and spending the time learning to play the piano or planning a holiday...


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> Because differential treatment of British citizens that's not based on anything they've done (to seek or assert dual citizenship) is socially corrosive.


I disagree completely. The negative aspects of the differential treatment are extremely easy to avoid and based around not suborning mass murder and rape. I'd be happy for anyone (regardless of whether they were dual nationals) to be stripped of their citizenship and thrown to the wolves for rape and murder overseas.



> Your position is like saying it doesn't matter if black men die disproportionately in prison; they can avoid it by not being criminals.  (Except at least they've had the benefit of a trial!)



Phwoar, nice one! That should get some danders up. 

I would actually take that position if it were guaranteed that the black men who died disproportionately in prison were rapist, mass-murderers.

That is the position that Begum is in.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> I wasn't talking about dual citizenship laws, I was talking about the law about making someone stateless.
> The dual citizenship was a loophole Javid had people scratch around for to avoid the usual commitments.  And there was no legal commitment to bring her back, so there was no functional difference in result.  Aside from feeding Javid's hardman fantasies, the main outcome was just to establish a lever and precedent for making people stateless.


The precedent has been established for fucking ever!

_Hundreds_ of dual nationals have had citizenships revoked by many countries.

Do you think it's just Javid/Begum?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Oh, we've had a good many come back already.


I completely agree that unfortunately some were missed. They got lucky.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> sorry Athos, she lived in an overwhelmingly Bangladeshi area, all her friends were of Bangladeshi heritage, her family (obviously) are Bangladeshi and indeed her old boy subsequently fucked off to live in Bangladesh - you can, if you want, try to persaude me that no one she she knew knew that children of Bangladeshi citizens are also Bangladeshi citizens with the right to live in Bangladesh, and that none of them ever mentioned it, but you'd be best off saving your breath and spending the time learning to play the piano or planning a holiday...


She was 15 years old ffs. She will have been hanging out with others her age among whom the niceties of Bangladeshi law will never have arisen. Why the fuck would she have known? 

Some nasty shit contained that post.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She was 15 years old ffs. She will have been hanging out with others her age among whom the niceties of Bangladeshi law will never have arisen. Why the fuck would she have known?
> 
> Some nasty shit contained that post.



when i was 15yo i was fully aware that i had the legal right to live and work in my 'other' country, and had done for years. its one of the things about us immigrant folk, we talk about shit that affects us...


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> The precedent has been established for fucking ever!
> 
> _Hundreds_ of dual nationals have had citizenships revoked by many countries.
> 
> Do you think it's just Javid/Begum?



Bit disingenuous.  If you mean your regular dual nationals who have a contact network in both places, are integrated with both cultures, are travelling back and forth every so often, then you're not making someone stateless.  

Though being fair, as soon as Javid started his shit there should have been a clear international response as to whether it was the UK or Bangladesh who should take responsibility.  There is clear pisstaking from both Governments going on.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> sorry Athos, she lived in an overwhelmingly Bangladeshi area, all her friends were of Bangladeshi heritage, her family (obviously) are Bangladeshi and indeed her old boy subsequently fucked off to live in Bangladesh - you can, if you want, try to persaude me that no one she she knew knew that children of Bangladeshi citizens are also Bangladeshi citizens with the right to live in Bangladesh, and that none of them ever mentioned it, but you'd be best off saving your breath and spending the time learning to play the piano or planning a holiday...



A long way of saying "yes, it's an assumption."

My interest isn't in persuading you; I'd just rather the law was clearer on this issue i.e. that it required proof that the person to be stripped of their British citizenship sought or at the very least knew of their dual citizenship status (so they could disavow it).


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 31, 2019)

This thread is why I am increasingly fed up with hand-wringing liberals. Unwitting allies of religious fascists. Useful dupes for a fanatical, apocalyptic death cult. Let her rot, I say.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> A long way of saying "yes, it's an assumption."



do you think its an unreasonable one?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Bit disingenuous.  If you mean your regular dual nationals who have a contact network in both places, are integrated with both cultures, are travelling back and forth every so often, then you're not making someone stateless.
> 
> Though being fair, as soon as Javid started his shit there should have been a clear international response as to whether it was the UK or Bangladesh who should take responsibility.  There is clear pisstaking from both Governments going on.



You need to read up fella. The UK has revoked the citizenship of (I think at last count) around 300 dual nationals who joined ISIS/Taliban in precisely these circumstances, as have France and others. Shamima Begum has only become a leftie cause celebre because she's female and was pregnant.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> do you think its an unreasonable one?



For chewing the fat on the internet, I think it's a reasonable assumption; as the bar for the state to punish people without trial, then I don't.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You need to read up fella. The UK has revoked the citizenship of (I think at last count) around 300 dual nationals who joined ISIS/Taliban in precisely these circumstances, as have France and others. Shamima Begum has only become a leftie cause celebre because she's female and was pregnant.



Ok, give me 3 examples of cases involving the precise same circumstances, reasonably backed up, and before the Begum case, and I'll duly back down on the 'precedent' element and downgrade Javid to "common-or-garden Tory cunt".


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree completely. The negative aspects of the differential treatment are extremely easy to avoid and based around not suborning mass murder and rape. I'd be happy for anyone (regardless of whether they were dual nationals) to be stripped of their citizenship and thrown to the wolves for rape and murder overseas.



You're missing the point.  Even those who avoid doing those things have a different *status* under the law.  They are not the same as 'real' British people, even if it's unlikely that difference will ever have a practical impact on them.  That offends principles of natural justice, and is socially divisive.



Spymaster said:


> I would actually take that position if it were guaranteed that the black men who died disproportionately in prison were rapist, mass-murderers.



Let me just get this straight; I think we might be talking at cross purposes.  I'm talking about two guys who've committed the same crime, and been sentenced the same.  One black, and one white.  You'd be happy with a system that means the black man is more likely to die inside?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ok, give me 3 examples of cases involving the precise same circumstances, reasonably backed up, and before the Begum case, and I'll duly back down on the 'precedent' element and downgrade Javid to "common-or-garden Tory cunt".


Why just 3? The HO figures have been quoted i this thread somewhere or I’m sure you can find them with a bit of googling. I can’t be arsed but this isn’t at all contentious.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> do you think thats the only reason he did it?
> 
> assuming it doesn't all blow up in his face at a future appeal, he's done a competant job that prevented her from ever setting foot in the UK again. i'm happy for people who do competant work, on time, to get plaudits and be eligible for promotion...



Yes, I think that's the only reason he did it, that and the fact that the ridiculous online outrage around Begum was very useful for moving Tory crisis down the news order. 

He's done a competent job for himself and his class, sure, but from the perspective of the working class and particularly those who are vulnerable to having their citizenship questioned, it's an attack, plain and simple. 




8ball said:


> You can't be this naive.



He can. Lives in a fairytale. No connection to the outside world. Thinks he's some sort of moral weathervane.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> You're missing the point.  Even those who avoid doing those things have a different *status* under the law.  They are not the same as 'real' British people, even if it's unlikely that difference will ever have a practical impact on them.  That offends principles of natural justice, and is socially divisive...



but dual citizens have different status, they are 'different', so its quite reasonable for them to be treated differently.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree completely. The negative aspects of the differential treatment are extremely easy to avoid and based around not suborning mass murder and rape. I'd be happy for anyone (regardless of whether they were dual nationals) to be stripped of their citizenship and thrown to the wolves for rape and murder overseas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Were you dribbling, cackling and stroking a flea ridden cat when you wrote this?


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Why just 3? The HO figures have been quoted i this thread somewhere or I’m sure you can find them with a bit of googling. I can’t be arsed but this isn’t at all contentious.



Just 3 to minimise any hassle to you, also you can cherry-pick if you like.  You have talked about the precise same conditions so obviously have some quite detailed information to hand.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, I think that's the only reason he did it, that and the fact that the ridiculous online outrage around Begum was very useful for moving Tory crisis down the news order...



you think there are no other possible motives for Javid - and presumably the rest of the government, as i assume it was mentioned in Cabinet - for wanting Begum barred from ever returning to the UK?


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> but dual citizens have different status, they are 'different', so its quite reasonable for them to be treated differently.



As I said, that sits better with me for people who've chosen to become dual citizens (or not to renounce dual citizenship) than it does to those who may not even have been aware of it.

It seems fairer and less divisive that British citizens should be treated the same, except where they have chosen to be dual citizens, when they must take the downs as well as the ups i.e. to discriminate based upon someone's actions rather than their heritage.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> As I said, that sits better with me for people who've chosen to become (or not to renounce) dual citizenship than it does to those who may not even have been aware of it.  It seems fairer and less divisive that British citizens should be treated the same, except where they have chosen to be dual citizens, when they must take the downs as well as the ups i.e. to discriminate based upon someone's actions rather than their heritage.



The whole dual citizenship ship shebang seems like a bit of a bodge-job anyway.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> Let me just get this straight; I think we might be talking at cross purposes.  I'm talking about two guys who've committed the same crime, and been sentenced the same.  One black, and one white.  You'd be happy with a system that means the black man is more likely to die inside?


All else being equal, of course not. But if the white man was was a foreign or dual national rapist murderer and I was able to deport him, I’d do it in a heartbeat.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> All else being equal, of course not. But if the white man was was a foreign or dual national rapist murderer and I was able to deport him, I’d do it in a heartbeat.



That's kind of a problem in itself.  If someone is a dual national of places A and B and does something heinous in country A, does that mean country B is responsible for clearing the mess?  Seems usually country A will be better placed, and also country A that is really responsible for seeking justice for those who have been harmed.

This case is more complex obviously because it involves more locations etc.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> As I said, that sits better with me for people who've chosen to become dual citizens (or not to renounce dual citizenship) than it does to those who may not even have been aware of it.
> 
> It seems fairer and less divisive that British citizens should be treated the same, except where they have chosen to be dual citizens, when they must take the downs as well as the ups i.e. to discriminate based upon someone's actions rather than their heritage.



Many people were not aware that they were dual citizens and have now found out that they have the advantage of being able to continue with free movement within the EU regardless of the Brexit outcome, I can't. The guy sat behind me in the office had no idea that his mum being born in Northern Ireland qualified him, I told him and he now has a second passport.

Is that the socially corrosive thing you were going on about?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Just 3 to minimise any hassle to you, also you can cherry-pick if you like.  You have talked about the precise same conditions so obviously have some quite detailed information to hand.


By the same conditions I mean that 300 odd dual nationals have been stripped of their UK rights for joining ISIS and similar groups.

Are you disputing that?


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Many people were not aware that they were dual citizens and have now found out that they have the advantage of being able to continue with free movement within the EU regardless of the Brexit outcome, I can't. The guy sat behind me in the office had no idea that his mum being born in Northern Ireland qualified him, I told him and he now has a sedond passport.
> 
> Is that the socially corrosive thing you were going on about?



Because people can claim perks they didn't know about, does that in itself justify imposing punishments that people also don't know about?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Because people can claim perks they didn't know about, does that in itself justify imposing punishments that people also don't know about?



Yes of course, dual nationality can't be all rights and no responsibilities. That would doubly socially corrosive, surely.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> That's kind of a problem in itself.  If someone is a dual national of places A and B and does something heinous in country A, does that mean country B is responsible for clearing the mess?


It can do. As the law stands either country can strip the rights of a dual national. It’s just a question of who does it first.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Many people were not aware that they were dual citizens and have now found out that they have the advantage of being able to continue with free movement within the EU regardless of the Brexit outcome, I can't. The guy sat behind me in the office had no idea that his mum being born in Northern Ireland qualified him, I told him and he now has a second passport.
> 
> Is that the socially corrosive thing you were going on about?



No, having the benefit of a second nationality that wasn't applied for (or even known about) isn't socially corrosive, _per se_.  It becomes so when that dual citizenship is used to treat some British people less favourably than others.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> By the same conditions I mean that 300 odd dual nationals have been stripped of their UK rights for joining ISIS and similar groups.
> 
> Are you disputing that?



Ok, so not the precise same conditions by any stretch (your words being "precisely these circumstances").  I was looking for that, plus a few of the extra elements which we have been discussing (I can quote posts which highlight these points if you like).  

I was, however, willing to take it in good faith and not pick at irrelevant differences, and only wanted 3 because even one sufficiently similar case would be enough for me to concede the point.  There was a good bit of discussion back at the time about the can of worms being opened, so if all of that was irrelevant I'd be interested to know.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes of course, dual nationality can't be all rights and no responsibilities. That would doubly socially corrosive, surely.



Actually, differences in _either_ direction are socially corrosive.  One does not balance out the other here.


----------



## eoin_k (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> All else being equal, of course not. But if the white man was was a foreign or dual national rapist murderer and I was able to deport him, I’d do it in a heartbeat.



The thing is "all else isn't equal". The legacy of mass migration from former colonies and the history of racism in Britain make it inevitable that the dual citizens in Britain most likely to face prosecution and deportation won't be white Europeans, even if the policy were implemented fairly, which of course it won't be. Should Britain really leave Bangladesh to take responsibility for Begum, never mind the injustices being done to others.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It can do. As the law stands either country can strip the rights of a dual national. It’s just a question of who does it first.



I know it can do!   I was pointing out that this is not a good thing.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, having the benefit of a second nationality that wasn't applied for (or even known about) isn't socially corrosive, _per se_.  It becomes so when that dual citizenship is used to treat some British people less favourably than others.



You mean like giving my colleague a right to work in the EU which is going to be denied to me?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Ok, so not the precise same conditions by any stretch (your words being "precisely these circumstances").  I was looking for that, plus a few of the extra elements which we have been discussing (I can quote posts which highlight these points if you like).
> 
> I was, however, willing to take it in good faith and not pick at irrelevant differences, and only wanted 3 because even one sufficiently similar case would be enough for me to concede the point.  There was a good bit of discussion back at the time about the can of worms being opened, so if all of that was irrelevant I'd be interested to know.


Well this is just bollocks isn’t it? Are you disputing that hundreds of other Dual nationals have lost a citizenship or not? If you are, you are wrong, if not you agree with me.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> All else being equal, of course not.



Ok, so, if in that hypothetical situation you don't think it right that there should be differing outcomes for the same conduct based purely on heritage, why abandon that principle and say that those who have dual British citizenship purely as an accident of heritage (i.e. absent any attempt to gain it, or even knowledge of it) should be treated differently from sole British nationals in respect of the same conduct?


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You mean like giving my colleague a right to work in the EU which is going to be denied to me?


It's not the British state treating you less well, though, is it?


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well this is just bollocks isn’t it? Are you disputing that hundreds of other Dual nationals have lost a citizenship or not? If you are, you are wrong, if not you agree with me.



Ok, I think that clarifies that you're either acting in bad faith or didn't understand my point, so our discussion is concluded.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> It's not the British state treating you less well, though, is it?



Of course it is, they are telling me that once we leave the EU free movement will end and my opportunity to work in McDonald's in Tallinn will vanish, whereas my colleague will still be able to.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Of course it is, they are telling me that once we leave the EU free movement will end and my opportunity to work in McDonald's in Tallinn will vanish, whereas my colleague will still be able to.



The British government will let you go anywhere; it's the EU that won't give you that right.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> you think there are no other possible motives for Javid - and presumably the rest of the government, as i assume it was mentioned in Cabinet - for wanting Begum barred from ever returning to the UK?



Nope. No other motives. He doesn't give a fuck. It's just grandstanding for points and a great excuse to undermine citizens rights.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Nope. No other motives. He doesn't give a fuck. It's just grandstanding for points and a great excuse to undermine citizens rights.



you know him personally?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> The British government will let you go anywhere; it's the EU that won't give you that right.



It's the British state which is changing the status quo, it is the British state which is choosing to forgo free movement, it is the British state that won't declare Hounslow as part of Northern Ireland. And so on.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> you know him personally?



What do you need to know? 

What do you think his motivations could be? Honestly?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> I know it can do!   I was pointing out that this is not a good thing.


I think it’s ace. Especially when you’ve got a superb Home Secretary who’s quicker on the draw than Billy the Kid.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Nope. No other motives. He doesn't give a fuck. It's just grandstanding for points and a great excuse to undermine citizens rights.



Just as a little background on this, the Government has previous pushing for the ability to strip citizenship from people _who are not of dual citizenship_ generally for quite some time, despite international agreements (they submitted a bill in 2014).


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's the British state which is changing the status quo, it is the British state which is choosing to forgo free movement, it is the British state that won't declare Hounslow as part of Northern Ireland. And so on.



The British state is treating all British citizens equally, in this example.  That some British citizens are treated more favourably by other states (or groups of states) of which they are also citizens, is the action of those states.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I think it’s ace. Especially when you’ve got a superb Home Secretary who’s quicker on the draw than Billy the Kid.



Now not just defending but praising a Tory home secretary I see. 

For shame. You wanna sort yourself out.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I think it’s ace. Especially when you’ve got a superb Home Secretary who’s quicker on the draw than Billy the Kid.



I'll maybe discuss a little further when Cunty Si is put back in his enlarged amygdala, but it's a CBA for the moment.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> The British state is treating all British citizens equally, in this example.  That some British citizens are treated more favourably by other states (or groups of states) of which they are also citizens, is the action of those states.



So those backward forrrins are the scumbags? I see.


----------



## Treacle Toes (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Possibly the most moronic post on the thread.


Well if 'i'm alright Javid' says so it must be true.

De ja vu...failing to think further than this case and those like it..

 This thread is an example of why spit hoods can be used to good effect.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> you know him personally?


This is Spacklefrog you’re dealing with, remember.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Now not just defending but praising a Tory home secretary I see.
> 
> For shame. You wanna sort yourself out.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So those backward forrrins are the scumbags? I see.



What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Rutita1 said:


> De ja vu...failing to think further than this case and those like it..



Come on then Rita; give some examples of this case being relevant to other situations. Go on, get your crowbar out.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> What on earth are you talking about?



You tell me that it is a bad thing to discriminate either positively or negatively on the grounds of dual nationality, then in my example you exonerate the British state from this and blame dem forrins.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do you need to know?
> 
> What do you think his motivations could be? Honestly?



i think his motivations are likely to be mixed and several fold, as they are for most of us with more than half a dozen cells in our bodies.

i think the chances of him being unaware that very publicly going hard on IS adherents, to whatever degree possible in each circumstance, will play well to the tory electorate (and wider electorate) are about zero, but i don't see why that should preclude it also being his own initial reaction entirely seperate from any career considerations.

i don't want her within a thousand miles of any city that my children might visit, i don't want her within a thousand miles of any train, bus or tube they (or i) might get on, so i'm very happy to see her have her citizenship revoked (or any other measure, whether administrative, legal or kenetic, taken), that keeps her a long way from me. Javid has four children, he's older than me, so his kids are probably older than mine, and they will be going into the same cities and on the same trains, buses and tubes that mine go, and will go, on, so i somewhat struggle to understand why, if i feel like that, Javid is precluded from feeling like that - just, in his case, with the power to do something about it.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> You tell me that it is a bad thing to discriminate either positively or negatively on the grounds of dual nationality, then in my example you exonerate the British state from this and blame dem forrins.



I didn't say that.  I said that it was wrong for the British state to treat some British citizens worse than other British citizens solely on account of their heritage i.e. absent any attempt to gain dual citizenship/knowledge of their dual citizenship.  That's simply not what's happening in the example you gave; that's a fact, not a question of exoneration.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> I said that it was wrong for the British state to treat some British citizens worse than other British citizens solely on account of their heritage i.e. absent any attempt to gain dual citizenship/knowledge of their dual citizenship.



If that's what you think, wtf have you been dribbling on about wrt this being the fault of Bangladeshi law, not British law. Fuck's sake. You and a few others on this thread need to sort yourselves out.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If that's what you think, wtf have you been dribbling on about wrt this being the fault of Bangladeshi law, not British law. Fuck's sake. You and a few others on this thread need to sort yourselves out.



he has - though i disagree with him - you've just not been paying attention.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If that's what you think, wtf have you been dribbling on about wrt this being the fault of Bangladeshi law, not British law. Fuck's sake. You and a few others on this thread need to sort yourselves out.


Because I recognise the difference between what the law *is* and what it *should be*.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If that's what you think, wtf have you been dribbling on about wrt this being the fault of Bangladeshi law, not British law. Fuck's sake. You and a few others on this thread need to sort yourselves out.



Bloody hell, what's up with this thread - it's over 2 weeks til the next full moon.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i think his motivations are likely to be mixed and several fold, as they are for most of us with more than half a dozen cells in our bodies.
> 
> i think the chances of him being unaware that very publicly going hard on IS adherents, to whatever degree possible in each circumstance, will play well to the tory electorate (and wider electorate) are about zero, but i don't see why that should preclude it also being his own initial reaction entirely seperate from any career considerations.
> 
> i don't want her within a thousand miles of any city that my children might visit, i don't want her within a thousand miles of any train, bus or tube they (or i) might get on, so i'm very happy to see her have her citizenship revoked (or any other measure, whether administrative, legal or kenetic, taken), that keeps her a long way from me. Javid has four children, he's older than me, so his kids are probably older than mine, and they will be going into the same cities and on the same trains, buses and tubes that mine go, and will go, on, so i somewhat struggle to understand why, if i feel like that, Javid is precluded from feeling like that - just, in his case, with the power to do something about it.



You haven't answered the question. What other motivations could he have?

I don't buy at all the idea that he is concerned she is a threat to anyone's safety, let alone his, or that he would care. And even if he did, he could simply imprison her. It's not as if the Tories aren't big on long or even indefinite prison sentences.

If you're worried that a 19 year old girl poses a threat to your safety, then I suggest you go and live hermit style in the woods. Definitely avoid cities. There are literally millions who could harm you if they so chose.

Been said too many times on this thread already and a lot of people haven't got the message yet, but it's important we stay engaged with reality and try not to get swept up in a moral panic.

Spymasters praise for a brutally reactionary Tory Home Sec, which is nothing other than naked class treachery, shows exactly where its possible to end up.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> You haven't answered the question. What other motivations could he have?



do you think he hates brown people?

do you think he has an irrational hatred towards people with the letter 'e' in their name?

do you think she gave him the push off in a nightclub and ever since he's been consumed with a bitter rage, and that he saw this as an opportunity to get his revenge?



SpackleFrog said:


> I don't buy at all the idea that he is concerned she is a threat to anyone's safety, let alone his, or that he would care. And even if he did, he could simply imprison her. It's not as if the Tories aren't big on long or even indefinite prison sentences..



i think that even a tory Home Secretary is likely to grasp while he can certainly oil the wheels of a prosecution, getting a conviction is something else, and that prison sentences aren't really something that he gets to decide on a case by case basis.

why don't you think that she _could_ pose a potential danger? is it because she's female, and you think that females are incapable of planning and carrying out violence, or that she's brown and you think that brown people are incapable of planning or carrying out violence, or is it because there's a tory involved, and the red mist has descended and your brain has turned to a catshit-based foam?


----------



## LDC (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> If you're worried that a 19 year old girl poses a threat to your safety, then I suggest you go and live hermit style in the woods. Definitely avoid cities. There are literally millions who could harm you if they so chose.



Girl? Or woman?

Come on though, she's not a 19 year old randomly plucked out of the phonebook is she?

She's what seems to be a reasonably committed jihadi who traveled to Syria using some level of subterfuge, lived there for a number of years as the wife of a daesh fighter, fully supported what they were doing over there (and this is leaving aside what she herself might have done, like have a slave or helped police and punish the local population for 'moral infringements' etc etc.), and only has ended up in the position she's in now due to them being defeated. Which as far as we can see from what she's said so far she puts down to them not being 'righteous enough'.

And to refresh some memories Isis supporter who 'bought a 5-year-slave, then let her die of thirst in the scorching heat' goes on trial in Germany


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Spymasters praise for a brutally reactionary Tory Home Sec ...


Quick Draw Javid


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Bloody hell, what's up with this thread - it's over 2 weeks til the next full moon.


It's made usually intelligent posters go all thick. Because woman. Because brown person.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> It's made usually intelligent posters go all thick. Because woman. Because brown person.



It's made you start trolling for lols too.  
This is hardly a new issue that no one has had time to think about, all this talking past each other and getting heated over strawmen is feeling a bit stale.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> This is hardly a new issue that no one has had time to think about ...


Yet you seem to think that she's somehow being treated uniquely. She's not.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> do you think he hates brown people?
> 
> do you think he has an irrational hatred towards people with the letter 'e' in their name?
> 
> ...



Nah fam don't twist it about, I told you what I thought Javid's motivations were. He is seeking political advantage for the Tories and for himself, and legitimacy for the idea that people can be stripped of their citizenship or declared 'not British'. Why are you now seeking to suggest I believe he's motivated by anything else? Just to remind you, YOU asked me if I thought he could have any other motivations: 



kebabking said:


> you think there are no other possible motives for Javid - and presumably the rest of the government, as i assume it was mentioned in Cabinet - for wanting Begum barred from ever returning to the UK?



I replied making it clear that I don't think he has any other motives and asked you what motives you thought he might have. So far, all you've come up with is the idea that Sajid Javid cares about public safety. Which is laughable, and I doubt in any other context you'd argue that would you? 

I never said she couldn't pose a potential danger. In fact I've made it very clear on this thread that I think some posting on it may also pose a potential danger. Loads of people could pose a potential danger. Doesn't mean you can strip them of citizenship does it? Why are you trying to claim that I'm saying she poses no danger? _Everyone _is a threat if you choose to view them that way. That's why I'm trying to help you. Go and live in the Appalachian forests in the US. No one will hurt you there. Well, no human anyway. 

The idea that Javid might be worried that she wouldn't be convicted in a UK court of law is as daft as the idea he cares about your safety. Have you forgotten all about Belmarsh?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

Athos said:


> Ok, so, if in that hypothetical situation you don't think it right that there should be differing outcomes for the same conduct based purely on heritage, why abandon that principle and say that those who have dual British citizenship purely as an accident of heritage (i.e. absent any attempt to gain it, or even knowledge of it) should be treated differently from sole British nationals in respect of the same conduct?


Because they can be. If British rapist murderers could be stripped of their sole nationality and forgotten about on an island somewhere, I'd support that too.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Girl? Or woman?
> 
> Come on though, she's not a 19 year old randomly plucked out of the phonebook is she?
> 
> ...



She's from Croydon, or East London or wherever. So you literally could have plucked her out of the phonebook. 

Girl, woman, whatever. She was definitely pretty committed at 15, so maybe we should have a think about the environment our kids are growing up in eh? Doubt she's all that committed now. What do you think? 

I see you've posted a link regarding the trial of a member of Daesh in Germany. Now, what happened in this case? Is she being tried and will she face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment? Or was she stripped of citizenship? What is your point?


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Girl, woman, whatever. She was definitely pretty committed at 15, so maybe we should have a think about the environment our kids are growing up in eh?


Here we go


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

If Begum came back here, she'd face trial for joining IS, and who here would doubt that she would be convicted. That carries a maximum of 10 years, so out in five potentially, by which time she will be in her mid-20s. We can't know what kind of threat she would pose by then. We live with that kind of uncertainty over all kinds of people. But you can bet your arse that she would be closely monitored for the rest of her life. Are people here really afraid of that prospect? Blimey.

I'm waaaaaay more concerned by the abuse of power that Javid is trying to exercise. Weird and fucked-up priorities here.


----------



## Teaboy (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> Girl, woman, whatever. She was definitely pretty committed at 15, so maybe we should have a think about the environment our kids are growing up in eh?



Jail the parents.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If Begum came back here, she'd face trial for joining IS, and who here would doubt that she would be convicted. That carries a maximum of 10 years, so out in five potentially, by which time she will be in her mid-20s. We can't know what kind of threat she would pose by then. We live with that kind of uncertainty over all kinds of people. But you can bet your arse that she would be closely monitored for the rest of her life. Are people here really afraid of that prospect? Blimey.


I'm not necessarily _afraid_ of her coming back. I just think she deserves to be as uncomfortable as possible for the rest of her life.


----------



## Athos (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Because they can be. If British rapist murderers could be stripped of their sole nationality and forgotten about on an island somewhere, I'd support that too.



Do you believe the sentence for rape should be longer?   If so, would you be happy if that longer sentenced applied only to one group?  I mean, it could, if the law said it could.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not necessarily _afraid_ of her coming back. I just think she deserves to be as uncomfortable as possible for the rest of her life.



So it's just vengeance for you then? Nothing to do with public safety, you just want to see human beings suffer?

I'm glad you've finally had the balls to say that. Acceptance is the first step.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Jail the parents.



Yes, actually, if they're proven to have been criminally negligent in a court of law.


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...But you can bet your arse that she would be closely monitored for the rest of her life. Are people here really afraid of that prospect? Blimey.



i'm afraid of paying for the kind of long term, all pervaisive surveilance you're suggesting is appropriate, and i'm afraid of it not being 100% effective for every minute of every hour of every day of the next 60 years of her life.  

her being dead in a ditch in Mosul, or licking the protein out of Albatros shit on the South Sandwich islands removes both of those problems.


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2019)

I would let her back and try her here.


----------



## LDC (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> She's from Croydon, or East London or wherever. So you literally could have plucked her out of the phonebook.
> 
> Girl, woman, whatever. She was definitely pretty committed at 15, so maybe we should have a think about the environment our kids are growing up in eh? Doubt she's all that committed now. What do you think?
> 
> I see you've posted a link regarding the trial of a member of Daesh in Germany. Now, what happened in this case? Is she being tried and will she face a maximum sentence of life imprisonment? Or was she stripped of citizenship? What is your point?



From what she's said, she is still committed, and if not then it's a result of ending up on the losing side rather than her having an ideological shift. I agree we need to think about what led her and others to go off and join IS, but that can be (and is being) done alongside whatever happens to her.

I posted that article about the wife of an IS fighter to remind/illustrate this idea that she was an 'innocent groomed young girl' as some have claimed may be very far from the truth.

My position is she has no 'right' to demand that the UK authorities should help her return here and absolutely nothing should be done to help her come back, or to have a different/easier time in Syria than she might otherwise.

And that the ball is largely in the court of the people that have her in detention in Syria, and I imagine there's probably some process going on to see if all those being held have committed any crimes while involved with IS there. If that is found to be the case then she should be tried there and dealt with there. None of this 'my UK passport gets me out of it' privilege, and none of this claim of UK justice being more compassionate and fairer than the system over there.

I'm _mildly_ uncomfortable for the citizenship to have been stripped from her, and I do appreciate and agree with some of the arguments others have advanced for that, but I also don't care that much, especially if it was done to stop her ending up back here easily.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i'm afraid of paying for the kind of long term, all pervaisive surveilance you're suggesting is appropriate, and i'm afraid of it not being 100% effective for every minute of every hour of every day of the next 60 years of her life.
> 
> her being dead in a ditch in Mosul, or licking the protein out of Albatros shit on the South Sandwich islands removes both of those problems.


As I've said before, she would find useful employment blazing a trail for the e1 to the south pole


----------



## LDC (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I would let her back and try her here.



Why? Don't any people she might have committed offenses against have a right to see her face justice there?

Does that work for anyone that commits offenses abroad? That as soon as they get caught they can skip off home without facing any justice where they offended?

If not why is she so special?


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Why? Don't any people she might have committed offenses against have a right to see her face justice there?


Is that likely to happen?


----------



## LDC (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So it's just vengeance for you then? Nothing to do with public safety, you just want to see human beings suffer?
> 
> I'm glad you've finally had the balls to say that. Acceptance is the first step.



Given the fact that this board if often packed to the rafters with hatred for what some politicians have done, I'm surprised that vengeance is such a difficult thing for some to accept as having any validity.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> From what she's said, she is still committed, and if not then it's a result of ending up on the losing side rather than her having an ideological shift. I agree we need to think about what led her and others to go off and join IS, but that can be (and is being) done alongside whatever happens to her.
> 
> I posted that article about the wife of an IS fighter to remind/illustrate this idea that she was an 'innocent groomed young girl' as some have claimed may be very far from the truth.
> 
> ...


You're quite right to question the quality of British justice


----------



## LDC (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Is that likely to happen?



I don't know, suspect they're a bit busy with other more pressing things at the moment in that part of the world, but once that's happened and they finally want rid of her I might change my position too.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 31, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Given the fact that this board if often packed to the rafters with hatred for what some politicians have done, I'm surprised that vengeance is such a difficult thing for some to accept as having any validity.


At the end of WW2 you'd have tried to foist lord haw-haw off on the Germans, to say nothing of amery


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

SpackleFrog said:


> So it's just vengeance for you then? Nothing to do with public safety, you just want to see human beings suffer?


Pretty much. There's certainly an element of not wanting her to be able to engage in terrorist acts or poison other's minds but my stance is mainly punitive.



> I'm glad you've finally had the balls to say that.



You're having a laugh. I've been saying that and similar on these boards for about 20 years.


----------



## SpackleFrog (May 31, 2019)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Why? Don't any people she might have committed offenses against have a right to see her face justice there?
> 
> Does that work for anyone that commits offenses abroad? That as soon as they get caught they can skip off home without facing any justice where they offended?
> 
> If not why is she so special?



You posted a link to a case where the offender is being tried in Germany but the mother of the 5 year old girl is able to give evidence and see them face justice. The two aren't incompatible.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yet you seem to think that she's somehow being treated uniquely. She's not.



I’ll accept your assertion about this when you back it up as discussed earlier.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> I’ll accept your assertion about this when you back it up as discussed earlier.


I don't know what you're asking me to show you. Once again, are you disputing that loads of other dual nationals have been stripped of their UK rights for joining IS?


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> You're having a laugh. I've been saying that and similar on these boards for about 20 years.



So you admit your motivating principle is based on wanting to see someone suffer (not just this person, but anyone who may fall foul of a capricious Government) and rather than consider other motivations and factors that others may be taking into account, you put any objections down to a lack of intelligence.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> So you admit your motivating principle is based on wanting to see someone suffer, and rather than consider other motivations and factors that others may be taking into account, you put any objections down to a lack of intelligence.


Correct.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Correct.



I edited slightly, but even without that I think the impasse is nicely summed up.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> I edited slightly, but even without that I think the impasse is nicely summed up.


Well your edit makes quite a difference, tbf.

I am most definitely only talking about _this person_ in _this case. 
_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> i'm afraid of paying for the kind of long term, all pervaisive surveilance you're suggesting is appropriate, and i'm afraid of it not being 100% effective for every minute of every hour of every day of the next 60 years of her life.
> 
> her being dead in a ditch in Mosul, or licking the protein out of Albatros shit on the South Sandwich islands removes both of those problems.


I didn't suggest that was appropriate in fact. I merely suggested that it was likely to happen.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well your edit makes quite a difference, tbf.
> 
> I am most definitely only talking about _this person_ in _this case. _



It makes no difference to the fact that the refusal to consider other motivations, eg. the requirements of justice for victims, issues arising from fucking with legal protections etc. in favour of “this one person must suffer “ is a stance we would normally describe as ‘blinded by hatred’.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Well your edit makes quite a difference, tbf.
> 
> I am most definitely only talking about _this person_ in _this case.
> _
> I would however, apply the same principle to anyone who takes up arms, or assists others to take up arms, against the citizens and the nation that they claim citizenship of, or who travel overseas to support genocide, rape and murder.


What principle is that? That some law the person wasn't even aware of should be used against them on the basis of their parents' nationality? Or any other discriminatory act. Cos they're vile people, that makes the arbitrary use of power ok? That makes you a useful idiot to power at best.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> It makes no difference to the fact that the refusal to consider other motivations, eg. the requirements of justice for victims, issues arising from fucking with legal protections etc. in favour of “this one person must suffer “ is a stance we would normally describe as ‘blinded by hatred’.


I'm happy to consider all of those. You've just not yet been able to provide any examples of anyone else been unjustly deprived of their citizenship. Take up arms against the nation that you claim citizenship of; don't be surprised when that nation pulls your citizenship if they are able to.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> I'm happy to consider all of those.



Which means your post #3077 was made reflexively without reading my post properly.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What principle is that? That some law the person wasn't even aware of should be used against them on the basis of their parents' nationality? Or any other discriminatory act. Cos they're vile people, that makes the arbitrary use of power ok?


It's not arbitrary at all. And fuck whether or not she knew about the law. It's not about her knowledge of the legal system, it's about her supporting genocide, rape, and slavery.


----------



## Spymaster (May 31, 2019)

8ball said:


> Which means your post #3077 was made reflexively without reading my post properly.


Yes. I started typing a longer post but lost interest.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Is that likely to happen?



Iraq is willing to try them all. They would like us to cough up for the massive costs of this, which seems fair enough.


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Yes. I started typing a longer post but lost interest.



Which is why the thread is going this way.  It's just some revenge fantasy thing for you.
Most of the people disagreeing with you have no interest in Begum being treated with kid gloves or even punished and then rehabilitated, but you can't be arsed with that because BAD SNOWFLAKES WANT TO TAKE MY REWENGAY!!


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Iraq is willing to try them all. They would like us to cough up for the massive costs of this, which seems fair enough.


I wasn't aware of that. Well being tried seems a desirable outcome but I wonder if the range of punishments Iraq might dole out would be acceptable to a British audience?


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I wasn't aware of that. Well being tried seems a desirable outcome but I wonder if the range of punishments Iraq might dole out would be acceptable to a British audience?



The response is already typed up:  "We are completely against the death penalty in all circumstances.  Iraq is a sovereign country."


----------



## cupid_stunt (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I wasn't aware of that. Well being tried seems a desirable outcome but* I wonder if the range of punishments Iraq might dole out would be acceptable to a British audience*?



Yes.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I wasn't aware of that. Well being tried seems a desirable outcome but I wonder if the range of punishments Iraq might dole out would be acceptable to a British audience?



Iraq Sentences Seven ISIS Fighters From France to Death

A 10-Minute Trial, a Death Sentence: Iraqi Justice for ISIS Suspects


----------



## A380 (May 31, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What principle is that? That some law the person wasn't even aware of should be used against them....



The principle that ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ is one that almost every justice system has. Can you list a country that doesn’t have this principle as a key part of their legal system?


----------



## kebabking (May 31, 2019)

weltweit said:


> I wasn't aware of that. Well being tried seems a desirable outcome but I wonder if the range of punishments Iraq might dole out would be acceptable to a British audience?



they are running an _inconvenient former people solution_ programme.

they hang them weltweit, well they hang them if they get to trial, otherwise they just shoot them. no one wants these people, Iraq doesn't want them, Syria doesn't want them, Turkey doesn't want them, Europe doesn't want them - they have nowhere to go having rather spectactularly burned their bridges and they are somewhat unwelcome where they are, so Iraq is hoovering them up and lobbing them in shallow graves.

unless you are happy for some of these people to be housed in your village,_ and_ you are happy to contribute towards the astonishing costs of surveilance for these creatures for the rest of their lives (a million pounds per year, per person - and there are around 1500 of them, so thats £1.5 billion then you're kind of stuck with them either being free to wander from Afghanistan to Morroco, Kenya to the Balkans, or to be subject to something unpleasant but out of sight.

so, which of these different, and all less than perfect options would you prefer?


----------



## 8ball (May 31, 2019)

A380 said:


> The principle that ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ is one that almost every justice system has. Can you list a country that doesn’t have this principle as a key part of their legal system?



Not off the top of my head, though it's derived from Roman law and copied by lots of systems.
Most systems that _do_ use this law have exceptions and caveats built in.

Not that any of those exceptions or caveats are really relevant in this specific case.


----------



## weltweit (May 31, 2019)

kebabking said:


> they are running an _inconvenient former people solution_ programme.
> 
> they hang them weltweit, well they hang them if they get to trial, otherwise they just shoot them. no one wants these people, Iraq doesn't want them, Syria doesn't want them, Turkey doesn't want them, Europe doesn't want them - they have nowhere to go having rather spectactularly burned their bridges and they are somewhat unwelcome where they are, so Iraq is hoovering them up and lobbing them in shallow graves.
> 
> ...


Put like that it is certainly food for thought.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Put like that it is certainly food for thought.



A 10 minute trial is nothing more than a piece of theatre for the lily-livered West who want to pretend there is due process and henceforth justice happening.  

Mass executions would be a lot more honest and open imo.

I wonder how many are found innocent in these 10 minute trials.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 2, 2019)

weltweit said:


> Put like that it is certainly food for thought.


 Considering Daesh happily murdered Iraqi Police and military personal and anyone else on their shitlist mercy is not likely to be forth coming.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 2, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Considering Daesh happily murdered Iraqi Police and military personal and anyone else on their shitlist mercy is not likely to be forth coming.



That’s not an inevitability in itself.  

But frankly, bollocks to mercy for 
slavers and rape merchants and torturers, the main problem I have is that wives that had no say over the husbands’ careers, medical workers, plumbers etc. are treated in the same manner as the worst of the worst, and the worst crimes don’t even get investigated. 

Rubber stamp, death penalty, off you trot...


----------



## Poi E (Jun 2, 2019)

kebabking said:


> they are running an _inconvenient former people solution_ programme.
> 
> they hang them weltweit, well they hang them if they get to trial, otherwise they just shoot them. no one wants these people, Iraq doesn't want them, Syria doesn't want them, Turkey doesn't want them, Europe doesn't want them - they have nowhere to go having rather spectactularly burned their bridges and they are somewhat unwelcome where they are, so Iraq is hoovering them up and lobbing them in shallow graves.
> 
> ...



Excellent post. We should also remember that all such volunteers have always been ready to die.


----------



## A380 (Jun 2, 2019)

8ball said:


> A 10 minute trial is nothing more than a piece of theatre for the lily-livered West who want to pretend there is due process and henceforth justice happening.
> 
> Mass executions would be a lot more honest and open imo.
> 
> I wonder how many are found innocent in these 10 minute trials.



Either way is significantly cheaper than weeks of drone flight time and a Hellfire missile, which is how we 'civilised societies' manage the quasi-judicial killing of our enemies...


----------



## tim (Jun 2, 2019)

kebabking said:


> they are running an _inconvenient former people solution_ programme.
> 
> they hang them weltweit, well they hang them if they get to trial, otherwise they just shoot them. no one wants these people, Iraq doesn't want them, Syria doesn't want them, Turkey doesn't want them, Europe doesn't want them - they have nowhere to go having rather spectactularly burned their bridges and they are somewhat unwelcome where they are, so Iraq is hoovering them up and lobbing them in shallow graves.
> 
> ...



I want to see them tried fairly,  if found guilty jailed with an appropriate sentence and rehabilitated. After which I wouldn't have a problem with them living next door.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 2, 2019)

A380 said:


> Either way is significantly cheaper than weeks of drone flight time and a Hellfire missile, which is how we 'civilised societies' manage the quasi-judicial killing of our enemies...



Watched the Jack Ryan series on Amazon not expecting much but it had a decent bit about the breakdown of a drone pilot (which then went all Hollywood when he went off to Syria to make reparations.)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 2, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Excellent post. We should also remember that all such volunteers have always been ready to die.



How do you know? Shamima Begum for one seems fairly keen not to die.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 2, 2019)

Occupational risk being a jihadi.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2019)

A380 said:


> The principle that ‘ignorance of the law is no defence’ is one that almost every justice system has. Can you list a country that doesn’t have this principle as a key part of their legal system?


Ignorance of _another country's law_? That's what we're talking about here.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 2, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Considering Daesh happily murdered Iraqi Police and military personal and anyone else on their shitlist mercy is not likely to be forth coming.



Who else has committed acts of war against the Iraqi state and people in recent memory? Summary execution for them too?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 2, 2019)

_They wouldn't have shown us mercy_ is not a reason not to show mercy. I fear the current indiscriminate vengeance now taking place in Iraq is merely creating the conditions for a new generation of conflict. There are thousands and thousands of young children from the IS area about whom nobody now gives a shit. Aside from the morality of it, it is also spectacularly stupid and short-sighted.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 2, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Occupational risk being a jihadi.



I bet they put that in the recruitment literature too.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 2, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Who else has committed acts of war against the Iraqi state and people in recent memory? Summary execution for them too?


Why not? Love to see TB getting shot in the back of the neck in a stadium in tikrit

Other executions are available


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 2, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> _They wouldn't have shown us mercy_ is not a reason not to show mercy. I fear the current indiscriminate vengeance now taking place in Iraq is merely creating the conditions for a new generation of conflict. There are thousands and thousands of young children from the IS area about whom nobody now gives a shit. Aside from the morality of it, it is also spectacularly stupid and short-sighted.



Hey, it worked in Rwanda. Sort of.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 2, 2019)

Poi E said:


> Watched the Jack Ryan series on Amazon not expecting much but it had a decent bit about the breakdown of a drone pilot (which then went all Hollywood when he went off to Syria to make reparations.)


  You would think the USAAF would treat their drone pilots better.


SpookyFrank said:


> Who else has committed acts of war against the Iraqi state and people in recent memory? Summary execution for them too?



 Well we carried grenades in case of capture knowing our likely fate. Locals stoned an alqueda team they caught trying to plant an IED to death. Got to clear that up not a good way to go. Mercy really doesn't seem to be something that Iraq is interested in.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jun 2, 2019)

dylanredefined said:


> Mercy really doesn't seem to be something that Iraq is interested in.



Lovely.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jun 2, 2019)

In spite of a long held opposition to the death penalty I am at a loss as to what to do with these people. We could spend billions of pounds locking them up and then releasing them under surveillance, then one of them goes off and repeats Bataclan.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jun 2, 2019)

SpookyFrank said:


> Lovely.



They had a brutal regime telling them a hard man was needed to run the country , anyone who thought different met a grim fate. Then after a war when everything went to shit. It looks like he was right to a lot of them.


----------



## Riklet (Jun 2, 2019)

What a fucking corrupt shitshow Iraq is. What a fucked mess of a country.

I have no sympathy with the real ISIS vermin but worry about all the others caught up in this. The settling of scores. The kids left behind. The officials lining their pockets from those who can afford to pay their way out of it.


----------



## Poi E (Jun 3, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> In spite of a long held opposition to the death penalty I am at a loss as to what to do with these people. We could spend billions of pounds locking them up and then releasing them under surveillance, then one of them goes off and repeats Bataclan.



Well, the specious argument is that you support prosecution but not the death penalty.  Whatever, strategic concerns trump this.


----------



## Athos (Jun 3, 2019)

tim said:


> I want to see them tried fairly,  if found guilty jailed with an appropriate sentence and rehabilitated. After which I wouldn't have a problem with them living next door.


Doesn't effective rehabilitation require a desire on the part of the subject to be rehabilitated? What makes you think it's even a possibility for many if these people?


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jun 3, 2019)

tim said:


> I want to see them tried fairly,  if found guilty jailed with an appropriate sentence and rehabilitated. After which I wouldn't have a problem with them living next door.



You'd have a known killer, or someone that went out there knowing they'd be supporting killers, next door?
These aren't reasonable people that think in reasonable ways - To them it's perfectly acceptable to murder you and your family as long as they can think of a reason, however idiotic, they're serving their god when they do it.

This is Jihadi John about to murder a man who has no way to defend himself against the cunt, a despicable terrorist twat who suffered a well deserved death, but you seem to be saying you'd have him in the house next to you if he had been captured, jailed for a time, then released.
They went with the express purpose to reject their home countries, and kill anyone that got in their way, so they should fucking well stay there and take whatever comes to them.
That's before you consider the mass rapes and all the other shit.

Basically, I'm saying fuck them and, if they die of whatever in some scruffy camp, it's their fault.


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2019)

Well done Squirrels, you just earned your ‘tough talking real man’ badges. Yay!


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 3, 2019)

Don Troooomp said:


> You'd have a known killer, or someone that went out there knowing they'd be supporting killers, next door?



I wouldn't want a jihadi living next door or anywhere within a 1000 mile radius, supposedly rehabilitated or not, but this is a shit argument. You could apply this to any convicted killer, motivated by a violent ideology or otherwise


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 3, 2019)

Fwiw I have no objection to any IS fighters being mussolinied by the people who had to live under IS, although uncomfortable with the Iraqi state meting out the justice given all sorts of scope for vendettas, omissions, corruption blah


----------



## Dogsauce (Jun 3, 2019)

Denying people justice always works. They’ll simmer down after a few executions.

Might want to consider the relevance of what Jihad John’s victim is wearing in that picture.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ignorance of _another country's law_? That's what we're talking about here.



I don’t see that as any sillier than talking about ignorance of the law in general.  I don’t recall getting a memo every time they change the law, even for the country I live in.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jun 3, 2019)

8ball said:


> I don’t see that as any sillier than talking about ignorance of the law in general.  I don’t recall getting a memo every time they change the law, even for the country I live in.


It's a whole different order of silly.


----------



## Don Troooomp (Jun 3, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I wouldn't want a jihadi living next door or anywhere within a 1000 mile radius, supposedly rehabilitated or not, but this is a shit argument. You could apply this to any convicted killer, motivated by a violent ideology or otherwise



A psychopath might very well be dangerous, but someone who killed out of passion might not even be violent under any other than the circumstances than those that caused them to kill.
People who kill as a result of indoctrination, at least in my humble opinion, are never quite trustworthy ever again, even if they seem to be cured of their stupidity.
Given these people are extreme even by the terrible standards we have come to expect from indoctrinated killers, none should ever be allowed back to their home countries or even released from the camps.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 3, 2019)

Is she home yet?


----------



## kebabking (Jun 3, 2019)

not-bono-ever said:


> Is she home yet?



she's home now.

not the home she wants, but thats her problem...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> I wouldn't want a jihadi living next door or anywhere within a 1000 mile radius, supposedly rehabilitated or not, but this is a shit argument. You could apply this to any convicted killer, motivated by a violent ideology or otherwise


i don't know, from reports from neighbours of the great majority of jihadists they are very pleasant to live alongside.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 3, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know, from reports from neighbours of the great majority of jihadists they are very pleasant to live alongside.


Suppose at least they won't be playing music all hours of the night


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 3, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Suppose at least they won't be playing music all hours of the night


no drunken parties


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 3, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Fwiw I have no objection to any IS fighters being mussolinied by the people who had to live under IS, although uncomfortable with the Iraqi state meting out the justice given all sorts of scope for vendettas, omissions, corruption blah



So execution without trial is ok when it's done by a mob, but not when done by the state? Think I prefer the latter to the former.


----------



## 8ball (Jun 3, 2019)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a whole different order of silly.



I think they call this "_Status Quo_ bias".

edit: or something like that, anyway


----------



## Proper Tidy (Jun 3, 2019)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> So execution without trial is ok when it's done by a mob, but not when done by the state? Think I prefer the latter to the former.


Wtf has happened to this place


----------



## kebabking (Jun 3, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wtf has happened to this place



The world got complicated.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Jun 3, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Wtf has happened to this place



Asking you to clarify what you mean constitutes something 'happening to this place'?


----------



## eoin_k (Jun 3, 2019)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Asking you to clarify what you mean constitutes something 'happening to this place'?


My reading of the post was wtf at you for expressing a preference in favour of state-sponsored extrajudicial killings.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2019)

A number of competing interests to untie here  - pkk/US/Europe/Kids/nutters

At a sprawling tent camp in Syria, ISIS women impose a brutal rule

The woman told aid workers it was an accident. Her 14-year-old daughter had slipped and fallen, she said. There was nothing they could have done.


But the body told a different story. The girl’s neck had been broken in three places, doctors said, and she died with eyes open, biting her lips and struggling to breathe. Photos and medical records suggested she had been beaten about the torso, then strangled. It was murder, not a misstep.

The teen, an Azerbaijani girl who had lived until earlier this year with her mother under the Islamic State’s rule, had run afoul of the die-hard ISIS adherents who have come in the past few months to dominate parts of the al-Hol displacement camp here in northeastern Syria, according to camp residents. They said she had suggested dispensing with her black niqab, the face covering worn by ultraconservative Muslim women.

Half a year after the territorial defeat of the Islamic State, the vast sprawl of tents at the al-Hol camp is becoming a cauldron of radicalization. About 20,000 women and 50,000 children who had lived under the caliphate are held in dire conditions at the camp, which is operated and guarded by 400 U.S.-supported Kurdish troops. With the men of ISIS imprisoned elsewhere, the women inside the fences of al-Hol are reimposing the militant group’s strictures, enforcing them upon those deemed impious with beatings and other brutality and extending what residents and camp authorities call a reign of fear.

...

Kurdish security officials, affiliated with the U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), say they have the troops to guard the facility but do little else. “We can contain the women, but we can’t control their ideology,” the intelligence official said. “There are many types of people here, but some of them were princesses among ISIS. There are spaces inside the camp that are like an academy for them now.”

...

In a report last month, the Defense Department’s inspector general, citing information from the U.S.-led coalition fighting ISIS, warned that the SDF’s inability to provide more than “minimal security” at the camp has allowed for the “uncontested” spread of ISIS ideology there.

...

In a video posted online in July, several women, fully veiled and holding the Islamic State’s black-and-white banner, said they were delivering a message from al-Hol. “Brothers,” one urges, “light the fire of jihad and free us from these prisons.”

And then, addressing the “enemies of God,” she says, “To you we say, women of the mujahideen: You think you have us imprisoned in your rotten camp. But we are a ticking bomb. Just you wait and see.”


----------



## alex_ (Sep 6, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> A number of competing interests to untie here  - pkk/US/Europe/Kids/nutters
> 
> At a sprawling tent camp in Syria, ISIS women impose a brutal rule
> 
> ...



Which sort of makes this make sense
Britain must repatriate Isis fighters, warns US defence secretary

Who’s better able to deal with this issue - western governments with a couple of hundred each or a failed state with 50k ?

Leaving them all in Syria won’t end well.

Alex


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Which sort of makes this make sense
> Britain must repatriate Isis fighters, warns US defence secretary
> 
> Who’s better able to deal with this issue - western governments with a couple of hundred each or a failed state with 50k ?
> ...



If they're returned to the west, they'll soon be free.  At least they can't harm the rest of us (as they'd no doubt like to) whilst they're rotting in Syria.  (They should take the kids or and have them adopted, though.)  Obviously, the risk being that they escape. Here the west should take it's share by providing resources to properly secure the camps.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> If they're returned to the west, they'll soon be free.  At least they can't harm the rest of us (as they'd no doubt like to) whilst they're rotting in Syria.  (They should take the kids or and have them adopted, though.)  Obviously, the risk being that they escape. Here the west should take it's share by providing resources to properly secure the camps.


This isn't an argument for repatriation, but they can't be kept in barely guarded camps forever


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> ... they can't be kept in barely guarded camps forever



No,  but they can be kept in well guarded camps until they die.  That's what western governments can do - provide resources to ensure the camps are secure long-term.  Bit unfair asking the locals to do it, but, understandably, nobody else wants to take them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No,  but they can be kept in well guarded camps until they die.  That's what western governments can do - provide resources to ensure the campus are secure long-term.  Bit unfair asking the locals to do it, but, understandably, nobody else wants to take them.


yeh let's have our own guantanamos

only without even the limited rule of law enjoyed by the inmates there


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh let's have our own guantanamos
> 
> only without even the limited rule of law enjoyed by the inmates there



Except they're not our own.

And nobody is arguing that the rule of (local) law shouldn't operate therein.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No,  but they can be kept in well guarded camps until they die.  That's what western governments can do - provide resources to ensure the campus are secure long-term.  Bit unfair asking the locals to do it, but, understandably, nobody else wants to take them.


That's not going to happen though is it, either the well guarded bit or the permanency bit


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Except they're not our own.


when we pay for them they are our own


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> That's not going to happen though is it, either the well guarded bit or the permanency bit



Who knows.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Who knows.


On balance of probabilities what do you reckon though


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> when we pay for them they are our own



No more than any other overseas project funded (at least in part) by foreign aid.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> On balance of probabilities what do you reckon though



I suspect that, unless western governments contribute, they'll eventually be released, or they'll escape.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> when we pay for them they are our own



Not necessarily - just think of it as a proxy war: we assist X local force to fight fight/imprison Y other local force when that's in both our interests.

We're quite happy to support Kenyan anti poaching teams protect Elephants, but no one is saying they are our Elephants.

We're quite happy to provide material and training support to Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian groups to fight IS, other fundie groups and the Syrian Government - but IS, other IS/AQ affiliated groups aren't our responsibility, it's a Syrian, Kurdish and Iraqi problem because IS and the other fundie affiliates are _overwhelmingly _populated by Iraqi's and Syrians. There are Brits and others involved, but they were never even a sizable minority of their members.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No more than any other overseas project funded (at least in part) by foreign aid.


utter tosh. what this is doing is creating internment camps - like guantanamo - abroad, it's not like 'any other overseas project funded ... by foreign aid'. internment camps designed at least in part to prevent british nationals, and people who may have a claim to british nationality, from facing prosecution, from being able to answer the case made against them. this isn't doing anything for global peace, security or governance.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

kebabking said:


> Not necessarily - just think of it as a proxy war: we assist X local force to fight fight/imprison Y other local force when that's in both our interests.
> 
> We're quite happy to support Kenyan anti poaching teams protect Elephants, but no one is saying they are our Elephants.
> 
> We're quite happy to provide material and training support to Iraqi, Kurdish and Syrian groups to fight IS, other fundie groups and the Syrian Government - but IS, other IS/AQ affiliated groups aren't our responsibility, it's a Syrian, Kurdish and Iraqi problem because IS and the other fundie affiliates are _overwhelmingly _populated by Iraqi's and Syrians. There are Brits and others involved, but they were never even a sizable minority of their members.


you seem to be talking about things as they are now, as they may be for a year or two or five. but that's not what i've been talking about, in response to athos, who seems open to them being of rather more permanent character than your pragmatic wartime camps.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> utter tosh. what this is doing is creating internment camps - like guantanamo - abroad, it's not like 'any other overseas project funded ... by foreign aid'. internment camps designed at least in part to prevent british nationals, and people who may have a claim to british nationality, from facing prosecution, from being able to answer the case made against them. this isn't doing anything for global peace, security or governance.



They can answer to local law, as any other British national imprisoned abroad.  Keeping them or off harm's way is less of a security risk than any of the alternatives.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> They can answer to local law, as any other British national imprisoned abroad.  Keeping them or off harm's way is less of a security risk than any of the alternatives.


can they? i am not sure what the local law is in parts of syria, as the damascus government's writ doesn't appear to extend throughout the internationally-recognised boundaries. just to clarify, do you mean local law _de jure_ - the damascus regime's law - or local law _de facto_? 

as for their imprisonment, it seems to me, and i note you've not taken issue with this, that it's internment: so they haven't really answered to any law.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> can they? i am not sure what the local law is in parts of syria, as the damascus government's writ doesn't appear to extend throughout the internationally-recognised boundaries. just to clarify, do you mean local law _de jure_ - the damascus regime's law - or local law _de facto_?
> 
> as for their imprisonment, it seems to me, and i note you've not taken issue with this, that it's internment: so they haven't really answered to any law.



De facto.

Call it internment if you like; it makes no real difference. 

The point is they're prisoners of foreign authorities, overseas.  And that's better than the alternative. 

I'm surprised at you fetishising the niceties of bourgeois law, though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> De facto.
> 
> Call it internment if you like; it makes no real difference.
> 
> ...


i don't think it is better than the alternative. i think it's markedly worse than the alternative. i think it's short-sighted and stupid, and so of a piece with so much else the government does. my opposition to the policy isn't based on notions of law. i'm thinking more of what could be learned about preventing radicalisation and debriefing these people, which isn't happening because this shitty government would rather make a point than learn a lesson. and it's to me disappointing so many people here seem quite happy to align themselves with this tory policy


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think it is better than the alternative. i think it's markedly worse than the alternative. i think it's short-sighted and stupid, and so of a piece with so much else the government does. my opposition to the policy isn't based on notions of law. i'm thinking more of what could be learned about preventing radicalisation and debriefing these people, which isn't happening because this shitty government would rather make a point than learn a lesson. and it's to me disappointing so many people here seem quite happy to align themselves with this tory policy



Hard man posturing from the usual suspects.

I can't help but feeling this whole thing is brewing nicely to become a big problem again in the future,  Still, its good to learn from mistakes.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 6, 2019)

I can't imagine that the people in the camps and their supporters are going to sit idly by and let this situation go on indefinitely, or until they all die.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Teaboy said:


> Hard man posturing from the usual suspects.
> 
> I can't help but feeling this whole thing is brewing nicely to become a big problem again in the future,  Still, its good to learn from mistakes.


It could very easily become a huge problem in the future, as these camps mean all anyone wanting to take over from daesh need do as daesh did with prisons in Iraq, attack and free the inmates and voila they've a force of trained and indoctrinated salafis. I don't think we've seen the last of daesh in Syria or Iraq, and if we should have learned one thing from the last 18 years it should be that jihadis are very good at organizational adaptation. Sure the next wave will be along shortly.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't think it is better than the alternative. i think it's markedly worse than the alternative. i think it's short-sighted and stupid, and so of a piece with so much else the government does. my opposition to the policy isn't based on notions of law. i'm thinking more of what could be learned about preventing radicalisation and debriefing these people, which isn't happening because this shitty government would rather make a point than learn a lesson. and it's to me disappointing so many people here seem quite happy to align themselves with this tory policy



Pure liberal fantasy.  Once they're back (or very shortly afterwards), they - these genocidal maniacs who hate us - would be freely walking amongst us, and there's no power to compel any debriefing.

Any opportunity to learn (which could be attempted in situ, btw) is massively outweighed by their capacity to organise, propagandise, radicalise, train, and commit atrocities.

These aren't poor dupes who've come to their senses and thrown themselves on our mercy; they're ideologically committed extremists who would still be gleefully supporting mass rape and murder had IS not been defeated.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> you seem to be talking about things as they are now, as they may be for a year or two or five. but that's not what i've been talking about, in response to athos, who seems open to them being of rather more permanent character than your pragmatic wartime camps.



I'm afraid that my pragmatism makes me believe that these people are sufficiently radicalised, hardened and _enthusiastic _about their radicisation, that they will be at war with us (or, perhaps more correctly, everyone else) until their dying breath.

I don't believe there will ever be a state of peace between these people and us, that regardless of how much prison time they get, or how many deradicalisation programmes they go through, or how well they are treated, they will always be at war with us, that even when she's 95 and hobbling along on sticks, if you have her a knife she'd be at your throat - so if wartime will last till their dying breath, then so can wartime internment....

I don't _like _that, but it seems to me there are no good options regarding these people - only differing bad options with downsides and future risks, and it's merely a matter of picking which one is the least unattractive. For me, a shallow grave in the desert is the least unattractive option with the fewest risks and downsides, but I can live with a prison camp in Eastern Syria surrounded by wire and desert until they pose no threat - which given the strength of their ideology, is when they go cold.


----------



## Teaboy (Sep 6, 2019)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I can't imagine that the people in the camps and their supporters are going to sit idly by and let this situation go on indefinitely, or until they all die.



Yup, something will have to give at some point.  Either they'll have to take the Iraqi government approach or they'll have to be released.  Uprisings will occur sooner or later.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 6, 2019)

Sticking loads of terrorists with no tangible prospect of rehabilitation together with minimal supervision, what could go wrong


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Pure liberal fantasy.  Once they're back (or very shortly afterwards), they - these genocidal maniacs who hate us - would be freely walking amongst us, and there's no power to compel any debriefing.  Any opportunity to learn is massively outweighed by their capacity to organise, propagandise, radicalise, train, and commit atrocities.  These aren't poor dupes who've come to their senses and thrown themselves on our mercy; they're ideologically committed extremists who would still be gleefully supporting mass rape and murder had IS not been defeated.


yeh so let's leave these ideologically committed extremists to their own devices in camps and should those camps be broken open i wonder what your hand-wringing will look like. it'd be grand if you could share the insights which have persuaded you that within months or perhaps even weeks (your very shortly suggests such) they'd be freely walking among us: i'm not so sure, and while there may be no _power_ to debrief, there would certainly be _opportunity _to. as it is you're doing nothing for security by advocating stick them in an oubliette


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

kebabking said:


> I'm afraid that my pragmatism makes me believe that these people are sufficiently radicalised, hardened and _enthusiastic _about their radicisation, that they will be at war with us (or, perhaps more correctly, everyone else) until their dying breath.
> 
> I don't believe there will ever be a state of peace between these people and us, that regardless of how much prison time they get, or how many deradicalisation programmes they go through, or how well they are treated, they will always be at war with us, that even when she's 95 and hobbling along on sticks, if you have her a knife she'd be at your throat - so if wartime will last till their dying breath, then so can wartime internment....
> 
> I don't _like _that, but it seems to me there are no good options regarding these people - only differing bad options with downsides and future risks, and it's merely a matter of picking which one is the least unattractive. For me, a shallow grave in the desert is the least unattractive option with the fewest risks and downsides, but I can live with a prison camp in Eastern Syria surrounded by wire and desert until they pose no threat - which given the strength of their ideology, is when they go cold.


you won't like Britain has 'by far the highest rate of returning jihadi fighters in Europe'

it's already happening, it's not being controlled.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh so let's leave these ideologically committed extremists to their own devices in camps and should those camps be broken open i wonder what your hand-wringing will look like. it'd be grand if you could share the insights which have persuaded you that within months or perhaps even weeks (your very shortly suggests such) they'd be freely walking among us: i'm not so sure, and while there may be no _power_ to debrief, there would certainly be _opportunity _to. as it is you're doing nothing for security by advocating stick them in an oubliette



Nobody is arguing that the camps should be a free for all. 

Why wouldn't they be free?  How many of them are realistically likely to be convicted? And, if they are, what sentences are they likely to receive?

Your 'opportunity' lacks any real value; why would they voluntarily cooperate?  They consider themselves at war with the west!

Yes, there's a risk of a mass breakout, but that can be ameliorated more easily than the risks that follow from their release.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Nobody is arguing that the camps should be a free for all.
> 
> Why wouldn't they be free?  How many of them are realistically likely to be convicted? And, if they are, what sentences are they likely to receive?
> 
> ...


i don't know if you've ever come across books about the irish republicans in frongoch, where hundreds were sent after the easter rising. it's been widely described as a university of revolution, and the events after their release in 1917 do suggest there's some truth in that. while you have thousand of people isolated in camps they are no doubt doing something similar, thinking about their experiences, analysing what they could have done, how things could have gone differently. and with a great sunni population in northern iraq who still have great grievances against the baghdad government, there is every chance they may yet pose a threat to the region for years. indeed the raf are going to be carrying out operations against them next year according to RAF sends Typhoon jets to the Gulf ahead of ISIS mission

while there may be no power to enforce debriefs and in at least some cases it may be difficult to prove specific crimes, the prosecution of people who've gone to fight isis suggests there are measures which could be taken against people who went to join them: that's why i think they might not be free for some time. and by taking people back you stop them coming back in dribs and drabs as the article i posted a little bit up says they are. it's better in my view to bring them back and know where they are than rely on them staying put. fuck knows where the people who've come back are, so it's in many ways too late for any reasonable solution to this.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Sticking loads of terrorists with no tangible prospect of rehabilitation together with minimal supervision, what could go wrong


These sound exactly the sort of people we should try to "debrief" and learn from!

Not. 

My solution remains as it's always been. Give them to Iraq to face trial there. They have offered to do the job (at a price which was being negotiated with the US). Let's take them up on the offer.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know if you've ever come across books about the irish republicans in frongoch, where hundreds were sent after the easter rising. it's been widely described as a university of revolution, and the events after their release in 1917 do suggest there's some truth in that. while you have thousand of people isolated in camps they are no doubt doing something similar, thinking about their experiences, analysing what they could have done, how things could have gone differently. and with a great sunni population in northern iraq who still have great grievances against the baghdad government, there is every chance they may yet pose a threat to the region for years. indeed the raf are going to be carrying out operations against them next year according to RAF sends Typhoon jets to the Gulf ahead of ISIS mission
> 
> while there may be no power to enforce debriefs and in at least some cases it may be difficult to prove specific crimes, the prosecution of people who've gone to fight isis suggests there are measures which could be taken against people who went to join them: that's why i think they might not be free for some time. and by taking people back you stop them coming back in dribs and drabs as the article i posted a little bit up says they are. it's better in my view to bring them back and know where they are than rely on them staying put. fuck knows where the people who've come back are, so it's in many ways too late for any reasonable solution to this.



You're not comparing like with like.  The Irish who were interned were always going to be released.   My hope is that these aren't.   And that sufficient measures are put in place to prevent them being liberated.  And, unlike the early part of last century, if released now they'd still be conferring over the internet. The difference being they'd then have access to an audience beyond themselves.

I think you vastly underestimate both the difficulty of securing a conviction in these circumstances, and the extent of any likely punishment.

I'm not proposing them returning in dibs and drabs; I'd rather they stay securely where they are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> You're not comparing like with like.  The Irish who were interned were always going to be released.   My hope is that these aren't.   And that sufficient measures are put in place to prevent them being liberated.  And, unlike the early part of last century, if released now they'd still be conferring over the internet. The difference being they'd then have access to an audience beyond themselves.


i am comparing one lot of people interned with another lot of people interned. which is like with like. on the one hand a lot of people who wanted to keep up the fight on their release, exactly - as you've agreed - the isis people do. so for heaven's sake why would you want to keep them in places from which their release is likely to be er informal rather than seek some better means of dealing with them. Spymaster has made a positive suggestion, perhaps you can too.



> I think you vastly underestimate both the difficulty of securing a conviction in these circumstances, and the extent of any likely punishment.
> 
> I'm not proposing them returning in dibs and drabs; I'd rather they stay securely where they are.


i said they ARE returning in dribs and drabs. it is an established fact.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Nobody is arguing that the camps should be a free for all.
> 
> Why wouldn't they be free?  How many of them are realistically likely to be convicted? And, if they are, what sentences are they likely to receive?
> 
> ...


Can it? These are camps operated by a nascent state fiercely opposed by a nato member in between two states highly susceptible to conflict and with likely territorial ambitions on the land occupied by said nascent state


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 6, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> These sound exactly the sort of people we should try to "debrief" and learn from!
> 
> Not.
> 
> My solution remains as it's always been. Give them to Iraq to face trial there. They have offered to do the job (at a price which was being negotiated with the US). Let's take them up on the offer.


Fair enough. I was clear earlier I'm not arguing for repatriation, I'm just commenting that leaving 50k of jihadis to own devices in a camp guarded by 400 soldiers carries certain obvious risks


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i am comparing one lot of people interned with another lot of people interned. which is like with like. on the one hand a lot of people who wanted to keep up the fight on their release, exactly - as you've agreed - the isis people do. so for heaven's sake why would you want to keep them in places from which their release is likely to be er informal rather than seek some better means of dealing with them. Spymaster has made a positive suggestion, perhaps you can too.
> 
> i said they ARE returning in dribs and drabs. it is an established fact.



The fact of internment is alike, but the massive differences in context render the comparison largely useless. 

Why keep them there? As I've explained, it's the least bad option. 

The ones in the camp (about whom we're talking) are a different group from those who are returning.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> The fact of internment is alike, but the massive differences in context render the comparison largely useless.
> 
> Why keep them there? As I've explained, it's the least bad option.
> 
> The ones in the camp (about whom we're talking) are a different group from those who are returning.


the least bad option for who? for them? for the syrian government?

i think you mean 'it's the least bad option for us and damn the interests of anyone else'.

incidentally i wasn't comparing the experiences of the two groups, but suggesting that what happened in the earlier example might happen in the more recent one.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No,  but they can be kept in well guarded camps until they die.  That's what western governments can do - provide resources to ensure the camps are secure long-term.  Bit unfair asking the locals to do it, but, understandably, nobody else wants to take them.



Including the children ?

Collective punishment ?

Alex


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Including the children ?
> 
> Collective punishment ?
> 
> Alex


it is the british way, endorsed by quondam anarchist sympathisers.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Including the children ?
> 
> Collective punishment ?
> 
> Alex


No, not the children. He's already said that.

The children should be removed and adopted/fostered.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Including the children ?
> 
> Collective punishment ?
> 
> Alex



No, I said a few posts ago that the kids should be removed.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, I said a few posts ago that the kids should be removed.



Up to what age? You gonna let 12,13, 14 year olds to be removed?


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it is the british way, endorsed by quondam anarchist sympathisers.



Whereas having them shipped back to be tried by the British state is...


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Up to what age? You gonna let 12,13, 14 year olds to be removed?



Any who didn't choose to go (or to remain on reaching adulthood), should be allowed out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Whereas having them shipped back to be tried by the British state is...


...at least not something i have in common with the government

...not shitting on the countries where daesh is active


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Any who didn't choose to go (or to remain on reaching adulthood), should be allowed out.



So a 14 year old in the camp is free to be sent to the UK and be fostered, as they were 7 or 8 when they were taken over there? Avoid the tube at Parsons Green.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So a 14 year old in the camp is free to be sent to the UK and be fostered, as they were 7 or 8 when they were taken over there? Avoid the tube at Parsons Green.



Yes, I think that's a sensible point to balance risk v culpability.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> the least bad option for who? for them? for the syrian government?
> 
> i think you mean 'it's the least bad option for us and damn the interests of anyone else'.
> 
> incidentally i wasn't comparing the experiences of the two groups, but suggesting that what happened in the earlier example might happen in the more recent one.



For everyone but murderous jihadists.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, I think that's a sensible point to balance risk v culpability.



Sounds like the permanent internment you advocate is more of a punishment than a genuine attempt to keep us safe from the nutters.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Sounds like the permanent internment you advocate is more of a punishment than a genuine attempt to keep us safe from the nutters.



No, it's an attempt to keep is safe from those who are so ideologically committed that they choose to join IS.  If that results in those who made that choice suffering some consequences, then so be it.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, it's an attempt to keep is safe from those who are so ideologically committed that they choose to join IS.  If that results in those who made that choice suffering some consequences, then so be it.



And of those raised in IS, who have known nothing other than IS ideology all their lives, they're OK to come to the UK and be fostered, whilst their parents are left to rot until they die in Syria. That's your plan to keep the UK safe?


----------



## tim (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And of those raised in IS, who have known nothing other than IS ideology all their lives, they're OK to come to the UK and be fostered, whilst their parents are left to rot until they die in Syria. That's your plan to keep the UK safe?



People get over ideologies. We never got this worked up about people brought up in Nazi Germany


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

tim said:


> People get over ideologies. We never got this worked up about people brought up in Nazi Germany



We hanged the main players, had de-nazification programmes running for lesser Nazis, and the Nazi doctrine wasn't 'destroy the west', was it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> And of those raised in IS, who have known nothing other than IS ideology all their lives, they're OK to come to the UK and be fostered, whilst their parents are left to rot until they die in Syria. That's your plan to keep the UK safe?



Yes, I think that's a risk we should take, because the alternative (locking up kids who didn't choose to join IS) is unconscionable.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)




----------



## tim (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> We hanged the main players, had de-nazification programmes running for lesser Nazis, and the Nazi doctrine wasn't 'destroy the west', was it.



Slaughtering or enslaving all Jews and all non-Aryans never struck me as being particularly in tune with conventional "Western" values. Your original comment was about those "raised in IS", not about people in the hierarchy, and anyway plenty of Naxi supporters in business, politics, science and the judiciary carried on as normal without any denazification.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

tim said:


> Slaughtering or enslaving all Jews and all non-Aryans never struck me as being particularly in tune with conventional "Western" values. Your original comment was about those "raised in IS", not about people in the hierarchy, and anyway plenty of Naxi supporters in business, politics, science and the judiciary carried on as normal without any denazification.



False equivalence - Wikipedia


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


>


You have a better plan?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> You have a better plan?



Yes, thanks.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ...at least not something i have in common with the government



No, it's something you have in common with the Trump administration.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, thanks.



Very droll.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, it's something you have in common with the Trump administration.


they're johnny come latelies on this one


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> they're johnny come latelies on this one



You're the cutting edge of Trumpist thought.


----------



## kebabking (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> You have a better plan?



Cholera?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Very droll.



It's already stated by me on this very thread, unpalatable as it is to a disingenuous, woolly liberal like you though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> You're the cutting edge of Trumpist thought.


and you're parroting a tory line.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> You're the cutting edge of Trumpist thought.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's already stated by me on this very thread, unpalatable as it is to a disingenuous, woolly liberal like you though.



I must've missed that.  What would you do with these children who are there through no fault of their own?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It's already stated by me on this very thread, unpalatable as it is to a disingenuous, woolly liberal like you though.


Your idea is shit though.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I must've missed that.  What would you do with these children who are there through no fault of their own?



Shoot 'em.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Your idea is shit though.



Another bleeding heart liberal


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> and you're parroting a tory line.



That's no less silly an argument than 'Hitler was a vegetarian, so...'


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I must've missed that.  What would you do with these children who are there through no fault of their own?


He wants to stroke them into moderateness.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Shoot 'em.



Not shooting children makes me a liberal?


----------



## kebabking (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Not shooting children makes me a liberal?



Yup. You probably drink coffee and eat salad as well.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Not shooting children makes me a liberal?



Wanting to take them in to foster homes in the UK, give 'em a cuddle and  Lidl carrier bag, yeah, it does.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> That's no less silly an argument than 'Hitler was a vegetarian, so...'


as is your risible 'cutting edge of trumpist thought' thing, once again you're happy to hand it out but unwilling to take it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> as is your risible 'cutting edge of trumpist thought' thing, once again you're happy to hand it out but unwilling to take it.



I made the point in response to (and to highlight the fatousness of) yours!

I'm willing to take it, but that's no bar on pointing out its patheticness.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Wanting to take them in to foster homes in the UK, give 'em a cuddle and  Lidl carrier bag, yeah, it does.



No, it doesn't.

But wanting to shoot them DOES make you a cunt.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I made the point in response to (and to highlight the fatousness of) yours!


it's not a point, not in terms of it being part of an argument, it's one of those digs you come out with but to which you object when they're er pointed at you. tell you what, bear this in mind when you're posting in the future and see how often you consider posting something like it again. i suspect you'll find it happens with greater frequency than you imagine.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> it's not a point, not in terms of it being part of an argument, it's one of those digs you come out with but to which you object when they're er pointed at you. tell you what, bear this in mind when you're posting in the future and see how often you consider posting something like it again. i suspect you'll find it happens with greater frequency than you imagine.



I don't object. I just think it's desperate, and beneath even you.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, it doesn't.
> 
> But wanting to shoot them DOES make you a cunt.



More or less of a cunt than someone who has fantasies of locking up thousands of women for the rest of their natural lives, without trial or any kind of due process?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I don't object. I just think it's desperate, and beneath even you.


but you have objected. what's fucking desperate (and, you often show, a depth to which you'll stoop) is coming out with guff like your cutting edge of trumpist thought. as i say, you hand it out but you don't like being on the receiving end. and your continued whining on the subject does you no credit.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> More or less of a cunt than someone who has fantasies of locking up thousands of women for the rest of their natural lives, without trial or any kind of due process?



Competition on this thread is fiercer than I expected.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> More or less of a cunt than someone who has fantasies of locking up thousands of women for the rest of their natural lives, without trial or any kind of due process?



I've said they can be tried locally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I've said they can be tried locally.


by some jumped up kangaroo court (or in your words the de facto law locally)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I've said they can be tried locally.



Yes, that's clearly what you meant by this:



Athos said:


> If they're returned to the west, they'll soon be free.  At least they can't harm the rest of us (as they'd no doubt like to) whilst they're rotting in Syria.





Athos said:


> No,  but they can be kept in well guarded camps until they die.  That's what western governments can do - provide resources to ensure the camps are secure long-term.  Bit unfair asking the locals to do it, but, understandably, nobody else wants to take them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, that's clearly what you meant by this:


yet he objects to the notion of these being little guantanamos


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> but you have objected. what's fucking desperate (and, you often show, a depth to which you'll stoop) is coming out with guff like your cutting edge of trumpist thought. as i say, you hand it out but you don't like being on the receiving end. and your continued whining on the subject does you no credit.



Please don't mistake me pointing out your hypocrisy as evidence of me being bothered by your weak barbs; on the contrary - I find most of your efforts very entertaining.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> by some jumped up kangaroo court (or in your words the de facto law locally)



Not the proper bourgeois courts you favour.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yes, that's clearly what you meant by this:



Nothing in the bits you quoted is at odds with my previously expressed preference that they be tried locally.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Please don't mistake me pointing out your hypocrisy as evidence of me being bothered by your weak barbs; on the contrary - I find most of your efforts very entertaining.


you haven't pointed out any hypocrisy


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Nothing in the boss you quoted is at odds with my previously expressed preference that they be tried locally.



Yeah, and as you know there is no local law enforcement agency to do so you are happy with...




			
				Athos said:
			
		

> Call it internment if you like; it makes no real difference.



Which takes us back you you rubbing your knees at the prospect of thousands of women being locked up without trial, until they die.

Which is a bit cunty, tbf.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> you haven't pointed out any hypocrisy



The hypocrisy is you objecting to likening your position to the Trump administration's, whilst you likened mine to the Torys'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Not the proper bourgeois courts you favour.


i think the bourgeois courts i suggest are used are rather more amenable to your actual argument and much less likely to admit evidence procured by torture. you by contrast seem to favour the local practice, which is unlikely to approach the norms of a court in damascus or baghdad and likely to look with equanimity if favour evidence obtained under duress.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Yeah, and as you know there is no local law enforcement agency to do so you are happy with...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd prefer to see them tried by those holding them.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> The hypocrisy is you objecting to likening your position to the Trump administration's, whilst you likened mine to the Torys'.


produce this objection.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> produce this objection.





Pickman's model said:


> as is your risible 'cutting edge of trumpist thought' thing...





Pickman's model said:


> ... coming out with guff like your cutting edge of trumpist thought.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

er Athos those aren't saying 'i am hurt to the very quick' or 'don't say those things about me' - what would commonly be known as objections - but rather speak to the emptiness of your 'cutting edge of trumpist thought' comment. it's the sort of dig you come out with when you want to appear clever but which falls flat on its face because it is devoid of an actual point or truth


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> i think the bourgeois courts i suggest are used are rather more amenable to your actual argument and much less likely to admit evidence procured by torture. you by contrast seem to favour the local practice, which is unlikely to approach the norms of a court in damascus or baghdad and likely to look with equanimity if favour evidence obtained under duress.



I've never argued in favour of the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I'd prefer to see them tried by those holding them.



The SDF?


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> er Athos those aren't saying 'i am hurt to the very quick' or 'don't say those things about me' - what would commonly be known as objections - but rather speak to the emptiness of your 'cutting edge of trumpist thought' comment. it's the sort of dig you come out with when you want to appear clever but which falls flat on its face because it is devoid of an actual point or truth



My point was that what you were seeking to imply by saying that my position is aligned with the Tory's is as fatous as me pointing out that yours is aligned with that of the Trump administration.   I'm sorry you missed it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> I've never argued in favour of the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture.


what do you think the local de facto form of justice will consist of? do you think it's all nice and adheres to human rights law and that? are you ignorant of reports like this Children 'still being tortured to confess to Isis links' by Kurdish security forces? yet you propose above saying 'let the locals try them' which is to me arguing in favour of the rough and ready justice meted out without regard for due process. so, i agree, you've not actually said 'go ahead and torture them' but we all know that torture is rife among states in the middle east let alone non-state actors like some of the kurdish forces.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> My point was that what you were seeking to imply by saying that my position is aligned with the Tory's is as fatous as me pointing out that yours is aligned with that of the Trump administration.   I'm sorry you missed it.


no, you said my post was fatuous while saying you had a point.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The SDF?



Yes


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> no, you said my post was fatuous while saying you had a point.



Yes, my point was to highlight your fatuousness.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> what do you think the local de facto form of justice will consist of? do you think it's all nice and adheres to human rights law and that? are you ignorant of reports like this Children 'still being tortured to confess to Isis links' by Kurdish security forces? yet you propose above saying 'let the locals try them' which is to me arguing in favour of the rough and ready justice meted out without regard for due process. so, i agree, you've not actually said 'go ahead and torture them' but we all know that torture is rife among states in the middle east let alone non-state actors like some of the kurdish forces.



Then make western support contingent upon monitoring of standards.  Plenty of options for making that work in a way that's better than having to take them back.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> ... we all know that torture is rife among states in the middle east let alone non-state actors like some of the kurdish forces.



All the more reason to not go there & join the ISIS rape/death cult in the first place.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes, my point was to highlight your fatousnes.


I think you’re missing a U here.

And an S


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Yes



So a kangaroo court trial with evidence obtained by torture, followed by a whole life sentence, for the 70 thousand or so women in the camps. Not cuntish at all.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So a kangaroo court trial with evidence obtained by torture, followed by a whole life sentence, for the 70 thousand or so women in the camps. Not cuntish at all.



Firstly, we're talking about how Britain should deal with the few hundred British citizens in the camp, aren't we?  Nobody seriously suggesting we take everyone from the camp are they?

In terms of preventing e.g. torture, I've addressed that in one of my replies to pickers, above.  Will that be perfect?  No.  But it's better than talking in a load of jihadists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Then make western support contingent upon monitoring of standards.  Plenty of options for making that work in a way that's better than having to take them back.


Rather a change from your try them under local law


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> Rather a change from your try them under local law


Not really, no.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Firstly, we're talking about how Britain should deal with the few hundred British citizens in the camp, aren't we?  Nobody seriously suggesting we take everyone from the camp are they?



So just the British women in the camp should be tried by the SDF and handed while life sentences to spend in those camps. Have you really thought this one through?


----------



## alex_ (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> No, I said a few posts ago that the kids should be removed.



But we should collectively punish the rest ?


----------



## andysays (Sep 6, 2019)

Well, this is all going along nicely, isn't it...


----------



## alex_ (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So just the British women in the camp should be tried by the SDF and handed while life sentences to spend in those camps. Have you really thought this one through?



Most of whom will be innocent by our standards of justice - as in there will be no evidence they committed any crime.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Most of whom will be innocent by our standards of justice - as in there will be no evidence they committed any crime.



They didn't live as members of the ISIS rape/death cult here, so why should our 'standards of justice' come into this?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Most of whom will be innocent by our standards of justice - as in there will be no evidence they committed any crime.


Nonsense. They'll pretty much all be guilty of aiding/supporting terrorism in various ways. 

Let the people who they've caused the most damage decide their fates.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> But we should collectively punish the rest ?



As I've said, they can be tried (locally).


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> So just the British women in the camp should be tried by the SDF and handed while life sentences to spend in those camps. Have you really thought this one through?



We are taking about how Britain should deal with the British prisoners. If, after trial by SDF, they're sentenced to life imprisonment I've got no problem with that (and note it's significantly more generously than their regime treated those far less culpable).


----------



## alex_ (Sep 6, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Nonsense. They'll pretty much all be guilty of aiding/supporting terrorism in various ways.
> 
> Let the people who they've caused the most damage decide their fates.



And the ones found innocent ?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

These are the areas on the ground that ISIL has raped and genocided (made-up word?)

These are the states who's justice they should face.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> And the ones found innocent ?


Free them.


----------



## Athos (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> And the ones found innocent ?



Lol, none will be found innocent.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2019)

alex_ said:


> Most of whom will be innocent by our standards of justice - as in there will be no evidence they committed any crime.


Nasty foreign people - savages.

 There will be evidence here but not there? 

No idea of what crime they could be prosecuted for or under. Just a general brits are best rubric.

This is the reverse imperialism here writ clear as day.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2019)

Iraq and Syria into Rome so into ICC, giving them jurisdiction - special tribunal for crimes smaller than genocide. World funding. Easy.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 6, 2019)

The sdf/pkk are under international law a miltia so not able to do any of this stuff. 

They want these people kept like this in places this in order to keep US support - oh we need help, we defeated isis, us alone . Being as they are a totally US funded outfit and tool of. The US wants rid of. So they try and push it on europe. The people in the female camps (which was the point of the article i linked to but following alex's talking about different people in different conditions the turn the thread took) are the fighters. There are many camps of them and be sure there are not 50 000 of them at any single camp with 400 guards.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 6, 2019)

Athos said:


> Lol, none will be found innocent.


Some _have_ been 'acquitted' by Iraqi courts, but you're right. You wouldn't fancy your chances, would you?


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2019)

butchersapron said:


> I think any resolution of her situation is only coming to come about via a wider international solution of the fighters in captivity, as a product of that.


Looks like that might not be too far off.

At least 2 IS prison camps within the proposed Turkish "safe" zone.





The IS prisoners no-one wants

Has Turkey said what they're going to do with them if they're successful?


----------



## newbie (Oct 10, 2019)

man on the radio says the SDF is already withdrawing their troops from al-Hol and sending them to the front.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2019)

well done donald trump


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 10, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Sticking loads of terrorists with no tangible prospect of rehabilitation together with minimal supervision, what could go wrong


Went wrong quicker than I expected tbf


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2019)

Proper Tidy said:


> Went wrong quicker than I expected tbf


that's the thing these days, everything's accelerated so


----------



## Spymaster (Oct 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> well done donald trump


Didn't even have the decency to raze the camps first.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 10, 2019)

Spymaster said:


> Didn't even have the decency to raze the camps first.


why should he, when he can let the turks do that


----------



## Teaboy (Oct 10, 2019)

Pickman's model said:


> why should he, when he can let the turks do that



I assume spy wanted the camps razed with the prisoners still there rather than their inevitable release by the turks.


----------



## kebabking (Oct 10, 2019)

See, that series of unmarked graves in the desert looks like a much better policy option now, doesn't it?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Looks like she lost the preliminary hearing.  It was limited to three issues, including whether or not she'd been made stateless - decided she hadn't, as she's a Bangladeshi citizen by descent. Now the tribunal will consider where there were adequate national security grounds for the Home Sec's decision.   (And possibly an appeal on the preliminary issue.)


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> Looks like she lost the preliminary hearing.  It was limited to the issue of whether or not she'd been made stateless - decided she hadn't, as she's a Bangladeshi citizen by descent. Now the tribunal will consider where there were adequate national security grounds for the Home Secs decision.   (And possibly an appeal on the preliminary issue.)



Her appeal, should, take the form of; she was dual nationality, the UK has stripped her UK citizenship, however to claim Bangladeshi citizenship she must travel to Bangladesh, a country that has vowed to hang all returning IS members, therefore under the UK's obligations they must take her in.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Her appeal, should, take the form of; she was dual nationality, the UK has stripped her UK citizenship, however to claim Bangladeshi citizenship she must travel to Bangladesh, a country that has vowed to hang all returning IS members, therefore under the UK's obligations they must take her in.



That'd be factually and legally wrong, though.  She is a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladeshi law, she doesn't need to 'claim' citizenship, or travel to Bangladesh, for that to be the case.  I'm not sure what legal obligations you think the UK has towards her?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> That'd be factually and legally wrong, though.  She is a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladeshi law, she doesn't need to 'claim' citizenship, or travel to Bangladesh, for that to be the case.  I'm not sure what legal obligations you think the UK has towards her?



She was born in the UK, therefore entitled to dual nationality. Under a what is very much a technicality she is a Bangladesh citizen. However without a passport she is stateless, she can't get a Bangladesh passport without travelling to a state that will execute her. Therefore, as a former UK citizen, who's citizenship was removed against her will, the UK will have an obligation to prevent her execution by the simple act of reinstating her citizenship.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Her appeal, should, take the form of; she was dual nationality, the UK has stripped her UK citizenship, however to claim Bangladeshi citizenship she must travel to Bangladesh, a country that has vowed to hang all returning IS members, therefore under the UK's obligations they must take her in.


It's nothing to do with her having to claim. She is not a dual national. She is currently a citizen of Bangladesh under their own law.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She was born in the UK, therefore entitled to dual nationality.


She's entitled to Jack. 

She is not a dual national.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's nothing to do with her having to claim. She is not a dual national. She is currently a citizen of Bangladesh under their own law.



She WAS a dual national. She has been stripped of her UK citizenship. However it is the act of stripping that could leave her open to capital punishment, the UK has legal obligations in this area, the specific situation is of course not covered either way by the legislation as it was not envisioned, but as it will end up in the ECHR I would wager that she would win with that line of argument.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She WAS a dual national. She has been stripped of her UK citizenship.


Tough shit.

She should have thought about that before she joined the rape and slavery brigade.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She was born in the UK, therefore entitled to dual nationality. Under a what is very much a technicality she is a Bangladesh citizen. However without a passport she is stateless, she can't get a Bangladesh passport without travelling to a state that will execute her. Therefore, as a former UK citizen, who's citizenship was removed against her will, the UK will have an obligation to prevent her execution by the simple act of reinstating her citizenship.



Not having a passport is not the same as being stateless.  She is a Bangladeshi citizen for the purposes of English law.

I'm not sure how far any challenge under Article 2 of the ECHR will get, since the UK is not doing anything to directly infringe her right to life by withdrawing citizenship; technically, her life is entirely in the hands of those who hold her and/or Bangladesh.  Generally speaking, there's no one obligation on the UK to grant entry to a foreign citizen simply because they're liable to execution under the law of their own country. I guess it'll come down to causation, which will turn on issues of remoteness and foreseeability.

Or, more likely, the UK will broker a behind-the-scenes deal whereby her captors undertake not to execute her, or extradite her to somewhere that will.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> ... it will end up in the ECHR I would wager that she would win with that line of argument.


Off she pops then.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She WAS a dual national. She has been stripped of her UK citizenship. However it is the act of stripping that could leave her open to capital punishment, the UK has legal obligations in this area, the specific situation is of course not covered either way by the legislation as it was not envisioned, but as it will end up in the ECHR I would wager that she would win with that line of argument.


Big assumption that the UK will remain within the auspices of the ECHR.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Big assumption that the UK will remain within the auspices of the ECHR.



I wasn't aware of any pending changes in this regard.  Is this expected?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 7, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> Big assumption that the UK will remain within the auspices of the ECHR.



It will.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 7, 2020)

8ball said:


> I wasn't aware of any pending changes in this regard.  Is this expected?


There were previous mutterings, but the parliamentary majority wasn't there. Now it is.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It will.


It will, but ECHR decisions are only advisory so whatever they say can be safely ignored. 

"Cheers. Thanks for your input. Bye."


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Sasaferrato said:


> There were previous mutterings, but the parliamentary majority wasn't there. Now it is.


Membership of the ECHR is unaffected by Brexit.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> ECHR decisions are only advisory...



This is the third broken irony meter you owe me for.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It will.


Notwithstanding that the UK will almost certainly remain bound by the convention, a withdrawal of the HRA is by no means impossible, which would effectively mean judgements of ECtHR are effectively unenforceable against the UK.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> Notwithstanding that the UK will almost certainly remain bound by the convention, a withdrawal of the HRA is by no means impossible, which would effectively mean judgements of ECtHR are effectively unenforceable against the UK.


ECHR decisions are not binding _now_ though, are they?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> ECHR decisions are not binding _now_ though, are they?



They are, practically speaking, whilst the HRA allows claims in the domestic courts for breaches of the convention.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Article here Shamima Begum loses appeal over citizenship

This bit is important, but no more than some of us have been repeating throughout the thread:



> "[Ms Begum] left the UK apparently of her own free will some years before the decision - and she was not outside the UK as a result of the decision."



How can that possibly be overturned?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Article here Shamima Begum loses appeal over citizenship
> 
> This bit is important, but no more than some of us have been repeating throughout the thread:
> 
> ...



She did not renounce her citizenship of her own free will. This isn't really relevant to the key argument. 

Obviously the key aspect of the case is whether Begum has been left stateless or not as a result of the Home Office decision. Predictably the UK court has ruled that she has not as she has Bangladeshi citizenship by descent and maintained the Home Office position. But Bangladesh says she is not a citizen of Bangladesh, so there is a dispute between the UK and Bangladesh courts. What court could/would arbitrate on that? And what international court or authority would Begum be able to appeal to? ECHR or some sort of UN body?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> She did not renounce her citizenship of her own free will. This isn't really relevant to the key argument.
> 
> Obviously the key aspect of the case is whether Begum has been left stateless or not as a result of the Home Office decision. Predictably the UK court has ruled that she has not as she has Bangladeshi citizenship by descent and maintained the Home Office position. But Bangladesh says she is not a citizen of Bangladesh, so there is a dispute between the UK and Bangladesh courts. What court could/would arbitrate on that? And what international court or authority would Begum be able to appeal to? ECHR or some sort of UN body?



No court is required to arbitrate that. In English law, foreign laws are treated as a matter of fact; and the tribunal has decided it's a fact that she's a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladeshi law.  It would be difficult for an appeal to
succeed on this ground.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> She did not renounce her citizenship of her own free will. This isn't really relevant to the key argument.
> 
> Obviously the key aspect of the case is whether Begum has been left stateless or not as a result of the Home Office decision. Predictably the UK court has ruled that she has not as she has Bangladeshi citizenship by descent and maintained the Home Office position. But Bangladesh says she is not a citizen of Bangladesh, so there is a dispute between the UK and Bangladesh courts. What court could/would arbitrate on that? And what international court or authority would Begum be able to appeal to? ECHR or some sort of UN body?


I guess that would ultimately be the ICJ but there's no case to answer. Under Bangladeshi law she is very clearly a Bangladeshi citizen, regardless of what that idiot says. Stripping her UK citizenship therefore did not make her stateless. Case closed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Membership of the ECHR is unaffected by Brexit.



I know.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Under Bangladeshi law she is very clearly a Bangladeshi citizen



It has already been pointed out to you that this is highly questionable, but do carry on.




Athos said:


> No court is required to arbitrate that. In English law, foreign laws are treated as a matter of fact; and the tribunal has decided it's a fact that she's a Bangladeshi citizen under Bangladeshi law.  It would be difficult for an appeal to
> succeed on this ground.



I didn't say any court was required to. But there are courts she can appeal to who will take the case. 

In order to treat "foreign laws as a matter of fact" they first have to be interpreted. This interpretation remains open to legal challenge even if you agree with the interpretation.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> It has already been pointed out to you that this is highly questionable, but do carry on.


Only to her apologists and people who seem not to have a clue what they’re on about. 

Home Office lawyers and now the tribunal disagrees with them. 

Get over it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Only to her apologists and people who seem not to have a clue what they’re on about.
> 
> Home Office lawyers and now the tribunal disagrees with them.
> 
> Get over it.



Do you think Home Office lawyers (supported by the courts) are a reliable source of expertise here? Are they somehow more reliable or trustworthy than Bangladeshi courts?

What is it you want me to get over? 

Is it upsetting you that a discussion of international law is getting in the way of your desire to performatively demonstrate your tough no nonsense attitude to a statelet many thousands of miles away? 

Why are you so confident of your legal expertise here? I mean, you're not contributing to this thread because you have an interest in international law, are you?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Do you think Home Office lawyers (supported by the courts) are a reliable source of expertise here? Are they somehow more reliable or trustworthy than Bangladeshi courts?


Absolutely. 

But no Bangladesh court has challenged this. It’s just the foreign minister who doesn’t seem to know what’s written on his own government’s website.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But no Bangladesh court has challenged this. It’s just the foreign minister who doesn’t seem to know what’s written on his own government’s website.



I see. Do you always show such blind faith in the courts?

Or are you making a special case?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I see. Do you always show such blind faith in the courts?
> 
> Or are you making a special case?


In this case it’s very clear. Sorry you don’t like that.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> In order to treat "foreign laws as a matter of fact" they first have to be interpreted. This interpretation remains open to legal challenge even if you agree with the interpretation.



This couldn't be more wrong. That's exactly the point of it being a matter of fact; it doesn't require English courts to interpret it; they hear evidence of what it is, and make a finding of fact. Findings of fact are much harder to appeal than mistakes of law.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

This is an interesting analysis.  Covers the issue of a finding of fact re Bangladeshi law (after hearing competing expert witness evidence), and the (extra- territorial) applicability of ECHR (by analogy through 'the policy') - it seems they decided it on the grounds I mentioned earlier i.e. foreseeability and remoteness. And it has a link to the full judgement.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> This is an interesting analysis.  Covers the issue of a finding of fact re Bangladeshi law (after hearing competing expert witness evidence), and the (extra- territorial) applicability of ECHR - it seems they decided it on the grounds I mentioned earlier i.e. foreseeability and remoteness. And it has a link to the full judgement.


Cheers. 55 pages of light reading for this evening.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Feb 7, 2020)

editor said:


> I guess she has the legal right to come back to the UK but its hard to muster any sympathy for her given the choices she made.



For me it’s not about having or not having sympathy   for her but protecting our system from sliding/being fucked further down the slippery slope by the current Gvt.


----------



## Azrael (Feb 7, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> For me it’s not about having or not having sympathy   for her but protecting our system from sliding/being fucked further down the slippery slope by the current Gvt.


And me. I'll never agree with giving some political placeman the power to strip British citizens of their citizenship, and these draconian powers only exist 'cause they were rushed through in a post 9/11 panic.

If it's ever done, it should be decided by a court after conviction for the most serious crimes against the state. Otherwise citizenship has been transformed into a visa, and not only that, but a visa that discriminates against certain citizens based on their background, itself an affront to equality before the law.

This is about the power, not the person.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> It has already been pointed out to you that this is highly questionable, but do carry on.



How so?  Her lawyers managed to find (an anonymous) expert who gave evidence on that point, but, as you'll see in the judgement, it was completely trashed. The SIAC seem to have little doubt that Bangladeshi law is clear on this point.  What makes you think otherwise?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> For me it’s not about having or not having sympathy   for her but protecting our system from sliding/being fucked further down the slippery slope by the current Gvt.





Azrael said:


> And me. I'll never agree with giving some political placeman the power to strip British citizens of their citizenship, and these draconian powers only exist 'cause they were rushed through in a post 9/11 panic.
> 
> If it's ever done, it should be decided by a court after conviction for the most serious crimes against the state. Otherwise citizenship has been transformed into a visa, and not only that, but a visa that discriminates against certain citizens based on their background, itself an affront to equality before the law.
> 
> This is about the power, not the person.



I have sympathy for these arguments.  But the wishful thinking of some posters pretending the law is what they think it should be is ridiculous.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> In this case it’s very clear. Sorry you don’t like that.



Your reason for asserting that it's clear is that the court said so. And that you want it to be. And now you seem to be suggesting you wouldn't normally trust the courts. Or at least you won't say that you normally trust the courts. 

All this tells us is what you want to be true. It doesn't tell us anything about the law.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> How so?  Her lawyers managed to find (an anonymous) expert who gave evidence on that point, but, as you'll see in the judgement, it was completely trashed. The SIAC seem to have little doubt that Bangladeshi law is clear on this point.  What makes you think otherwise?



Did you read my previous post?

In this scenario I would expect (because I don't believe courts are neutral) UK courts to agree with the UK govt and Bangladeshi courts to agree with the Bangladeshi govt. That doesn't tell us anything though. My question is what court could or would arbitrate in the event of an appeal.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> This couldn't be more wrong. That's exactly the point of it being a matter of fact; it doesn't require English courts to interpret it; they hear evidence of what it is, and make a finding of fact. Findings of fact are much harder to appeal than mistakes of law.



Do you know how complex Bangladeshi law is in relation to this? It has to be interpreted.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Your reason for asserting that it's clear is that the court said so.


No it’s not, it’s because Bangladeshi law says so. I and others have been saying precisely the same thing on this thread for months.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Did you read my previous post?
> 
> In this scenario I would expect (because I don't believe courts are neutral) UK courts to agree with the UK govt and Bangladeshi courts to agree with the Bangladeshi govt. That doesn't tell us anything though. My question is what court could or would arbitrate in the event of an appeal.



The Supreme Court.

What makes you think the Bangladeshi government is right, because on the face if it, Bangladeshi law is pretty clear?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Cheers. 55 pages of light reading for this evening.



"Light reading".


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Do you know how complex Bangladeshi law is in relation to this? It has to be interpreted.



It's really not complex at all. Quite straightforward.  Where do you think the doubt as to her Bangladeshi citizenship under Bangladeshi law is?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> The Supreme Court.
> 
> What makes you think the Bangladeshi government is right, because on the face if it, Bangladeshi law is pretty clear?



Firstly, Bangladeshi law is not clear at all. You have yourself just linked to a piece that says it's very complicated and that we can't straightforwardly say whether she is a citizen in Bangladeshi law or not, and you've said that an expert argued that she wasn't. There are several potentially conflicting pieces of legislation. 

Secondly, I didn't say I thought the Bangladeshi court was right, did I? I asked a serious question about what international courts might arbitrate on this and hear an appeal. Other than that, I'm just pointing out that you keep stating that the court had made a ruling and that therefore the law must have been correctly followed. That's pretty odd for Urban, most posters understand that courts make political decisions, in the same way that most posters understand the tooth fairy isn't real.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> It's really not complex at all. Quite straightforward.  Where do you think the doubt as to her Bangladeshi citizenship under Bangladeshi law is?



Registration of birth, dual citizenship, citizenship of hostile power, de facto refusal of entry.

Some of this is stuff from the article you posted.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Registration of birth, dual citizenship, citizenship of hostile power, de facto refusal of entry.
> 
> Some of this is stuff from the article you posted.



Word salad.  Can you begin to cobble together a serious argument that she's not Bangladeshi, based on Bangladeshi law?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Firstly, Bangladeshi law is not clear at all. You have yourself just linked to a piece that says it's very complicated and that we can't straightforwardly say whether she is a citizen in Bangladeshi law or not, and you've said that an expert argued that she wasn't. There are several potentially conflicting pieces of legislation.
> 
> Secondly, I didn't say I thought the Bangladeshi court was right, did I? I asked a serious question about what international courts might arbitrate on this and hear an appeal. Other than that, I'm just pointing out that you keep stating that the court had made a ruling and that therefore the law must have been correctly followed. That's pretty odd for Urban, most posters understand that courts make political decisions, in the same way that most posters understand the tooth fairy isn't real.



The expert was recruited by her lawyers to say that. He utterly failed to present any cogent argument in support of that position, though.

I'm not saying the law must have been followed because a court found that, or arguing that the courts are politically neutral, though - that's a strawman.

I'm saying that it's clear from the facts if the case and the Bangladeshi laws themselves that she is a Bangladeshi citizen.

You seem to think otherwise, but don't seem able to articulate why.

Perhaps you could start to pointing out where and how the SIAC has erred in its findings on the Decision 1 issue, with reference to the published judgement?


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> (because I don't believe courts are neutral)



You hold this view, despite the number of high profile defeats the government have had in court over recent years?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> You hold this view, despite the number of high profile defeats the government have had in court over recent years?



Sorry? 

What's your point?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> You hold this view, despite the number of high profile defeats the government have had in court over recent years?



Including on this issue, by the SIAC.

The logic is faulty. It's like saying Liverpool didn't play better, because a Liverpool fan said they did, and he's not neutral!

He's unable to point to anything substantive that supports the idea she is isn't Bangladeshi.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2020)

Big pile of shite, still.  Someone doesn't become 'from' somewhere just because some Whitehall cunt has dug something up from a book.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sorry?
> 
> What's your point?



You said that you don't think courts are neutral, and you expect UK courts to agree with the UK govt., yet time & time again they have ruled against the govt. 

Frankly bizarre.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

8ball said:


> Big pile of shite, still.  Someone doesn't become 'from' somewhere just because some Whitehall cunt has dug something up from a book.


Nobody is arguing that she’s “from” Bangladesh though. The argument is that under Bangladeshi law, she holds citizenship of that state, ergo the HO decision to remove her British citizenship did not make her stateless.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> Including on this issue, by the SIAC.
> 
> The logic is faulty. It's like saying Liverpool didn't play better, because a Liverpool fan said they did, and he's not neutral!
> 
> He's unable to point to anything substantive that supports the idea she is isn't Bangladeshi.



Firstly, your analogy doesn't work. Now, if you said that Liverpool deserved to win the league, because a Liverpool fan said so, that might provide a rough parallel with what youre doing. You're saying that the court is right, because the court said it was right. 

Secondly, you still aren't understanding me. I'm not saying she is a Bangladeshi citizen. I'm just saying whether she is or not is open to legal challenge. As your own posts confirm.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Nobody is arguing that she’s “from” Bangladesh though. The argument is that under Bangladeshi law, she holds citizenship of that state, ergo the HO decision to remove her British citizenship did not make her stateless.



Yep, typical load of old shite.  Arguing over their magic words, the cunts.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> You said that you don't think courts are neutral, and you expect UK courts to agree with the UK govt., yet time & time again they have ruled against the govt.
> 
> Frankly bizarre.



No, I said in a dispute between the UK and Bangladesh I would expect a UK court to side with the UK govt and a Bangladeshi court to side with the Bangladeshi govt. 

Do you think thats bizarre? Would you expect any different?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> You're saying that the court is right, because the court said it was right.



No, I'm saying the court was right in what it said about what the Bangladeshi law says, because that *is* what the Bangladeshi law says - it's quite clear on the face of it, despite her lawyers finding an 'expert's who tried (spectacularly unsuccessfully) to pretend otherwise.



SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not saying she is a Bangladeshi citizen. I'm just saying whether she is or not is open to legal challenge.



Not any convincing one I can think of, or you can offer.  Or, indeed, her lawyers.

Essentially the difference between us is that I say she's a Bangladeshi citizen (and can explain why with reference to Bangladeshi law). Whereas you say you don't know whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen, but that she might be, albeit you can't say why.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm just saying whether she is or not is open to legal challenge.


On what basis do you believe that to be the case?

It has just been 'legally challenged'. The challenge failed.

Which bit of law do you think has gone wrong here?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Feb 7, 2020)

IMO She is our responsibility, no one elses.


----------



## dylanredefined (Feb 7, 2020)

Is she a risk to the UK or Bangladesh?
As the kurds wont put the lot of them in a mass grave or hand them over to someone who will. Guess we have to take them back.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2020)

Count Cuckula said:


> She is our responsibility, no one elses.



That might be arguable, but this legal shite is just gameplaying to keep the racist constituency on side.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 7, 2020)

The fact that this one woman's case keeps coming up is one thing and it raises the issue but my understanding is that there are tens of thousands of people in her situation. At the moment they are all in refugee camps including thousands and thousands of completely innocent children.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

dylanredefined said:


> Is she a risk to the UK or Bangladesh?


Doesn't really matter now does it.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2020)

weltweit said:


> The fact that this one woman's case keeps coming up is one thing and it raises the issue but my understanding is that there are tens of thousands of people in her situation. At the moment they are all in refugee camps including thousands and thousands of completely innocent children.



Good point.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

8ball said:


> That might be arguable, but this legal shite is just gameplaying to keep the racist constituency on side.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

weltweit said:


> The fact that this one woman's case keeps coming up is one thing and it raises the issue but my understanding is that there are tens of thousands of people in her situation. At the moment they are all in refugee camps including thousands and thousands of completely innocent children.


The children are the tragedy but I seem to recall that various governments including the UK have said they'd accept the kids.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, I'm saying the court was right in what it said about what the Bangladeshi law says, because that *is* what the Bangladeshi law says - it's quite clear on the face of it, despite her lawyers finding an 'expert's who tried (spectacularly unsuccessfully) to pretend otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You literally posted an article saying it was worth reading which lists possible challenges to the ruling that she is a Bangladeshi citizen.



Spymaster said:


> On what basis do you believe that to be the case?
> 
> It has just been 'legally challenged'. The challenge failed.
> 
> Which bit of law do you think has gone wrong here?



I don't think the law has "gone wrong", I'm just saying that as the article Athos posted says Bangladeshi law on this is complex and several factors could mean she is not a citizen, for example her being a citizen of a hostile state, not being on any records or having never activated her citizenship.

Additionally Bangladesh isn't signed up to the convention on not making people stateless so they have the freedom to officially revoke her citizenship whatever.



Spymaster said:


> Doesn't really matter now does it.



Actually it does, legally, that will be the focus of the next appeal hearing in the UK. Not that I expect that to be successful.

It also matters in terms of what happens to others in a similar position, unless you think that the number of stateless people in the world doesn't matter.


----------



## Manter (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> The children are the tragedy but I seem to recall that various governments including the UK have said they'd accept the kids.


Josie Ensor was reporting from Kurdish held areas today talking about how the UK government is refusing to repatriate even orphaned children.  And Quentin Sommerville is doing a very interesting series called after the caliphate finding out what happened to those repatriated to their countries, explicitly in contrast to the UK where we have said we won’t.

Christ, we won’t reunite refugee kids in mainland Europe with their families, no way we’d take ‘isis orphans’


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Manter said:


> Josie Ensor was reporting from Kurdish held areas today talking about how the UK government is refusing to repatriate even orphaned children.  And Quentin Sommerville is doing a very interesting series called after the caliphate finding out what happened to those repatriated to their countries, explicitly in contrast to the UK where we have said we won’t.
> 
> Christ, we won’t reunite refugee kids in mainland Europe with their families, no way we’d take ‘isis orphans’


Fair enough.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> You literally posted an article saying it was worth reading which lists possible challenges to the ruling that she is a Bangladeshi citizen.



No it doest.  It refers to two (unsucessful) challenges on the citizenship issue: one of them isn't really a question of what Bangladeshi law says (so much as her espert's unevidenced assertion about the operation of the Bangladeshi courts); the other is utterly vague (just mentioning that her expert disputed the Home Sec's, without saying why).  In any event, both were completely dismantled in the judgment, to which it links.

Again, you've failed to provide any reasonable basis for an argument that she's not Bangladeshi.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Additionally Bangladesh isn't signed up to the convention on not making people stateless so they have the freedom to officially revoke her citizenship whatever.



If they did that it would be them making her stateless, not the UK government. But that's not their position anyway. They are trying to say that she was _never_ a citizen of theirs, which is clearly contrary to their own laws.

It's like someone from the Home Office saying "murder is legal". We know that's nonsense because there's a load of law that says it isn't.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 7, 2020)

weltweit said:


> The fact that this one woman's case keeps coming up is one thing and it raises the issue but my understanding is that there are tens of thousands of people in her situation. At the moment they are all in refugee camps including thousands and thousands of completely innocent children.


It’s a real dilemma . I’d have the kids but I wouldn’t have the parents and I think on child protection terms the kids deserve different parents and a normal family home.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Actually it does, legally, that will be the focus of the next appeal hearing in the UK.


I'm not sure why that would be the case when they haven't overturned the initial decision. So they show that she's no threat (not sure how they'd do that, but still) then what? She still had her citizenship revoked lawfully so where does that get them?

Where did you get this from?


----------



## A380 (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> ...
> It's like someone from the Home Office saying "murder is legal". We know that's nonsense because there's a load of law that says it isn't.



Rest, that’s my plans for the weekend buggered  then.


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I'm not sure why that would be the case when they haven't overturned the initial decision. So they show that she's no threat (not sure how they'd do that, but still) then what? She still had her citizenship revoked lawfully so where does that get them?
> 
> Where did you get this from?



No, he's right on that issue.  That was just a preliminary hearing limited to those three specific issues.  Her appeal could suceed at the next hearing, if she can demonstrate that there was not a reasonable national security reason.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, he's right on that issue.  That was just a preliminary hearing limited to those three specific issues.  Her appeal could suceed at the next hearing, if she can demonstrate that there was not a reasonable national security reason.


But if the other 3 issues still stand, how does the appeal succeed?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> But if the other 3 issues still stand, how does the appeal succeed?



If she'd have won on any of the other three, the appeal would've almost certainly suceeded.  That she didn't doesn't mean she can't sucessfully appeal the decision on the basis of the fourt ground.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> If she'd have won on any of the other three, the appeal would've almost certainly suceeded.  That she didn't doesn't mean she can't sucessfully appeal the decision on the basis of the fourt ground.


So if they find that she's not a threat to national security the Home Office is obliged to reinstate her citizenship?


----------



## Athos (Feb 7, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> So if they find that she's not a threat to national security the Home Office is obliged to reinstate her citizenship?



Yes.  Although tehnically I think the test is whether the deprivation of her citizenship would be conducive to the public good.  It's very hard to say how that should go, as we don;t know what evidence or intelligence the decision was based on.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 7, 2020)

Athos said:


> Although tehnically I think the test is whether the deprivation of her citizenship would be conducive to the public good.


Cheers. That makes more sense.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> No it doest.  It refers to two (unsucessful) challenges on the citizenship issue: one of them isn't really a question of what Bangladeshi law says (so much as her espert's unevidenced assertion about the operation of the Bangladeshi courts); the other is utterly vague (just mentioning that her expert disputed the Home Sec's, without saying why).  In any event, both were completely dismantled in the judgment, to which it links.
> 
> Again, you've failed to provide any reasonable basis for an argument that she's not Bangladeshi.



I'm giving up on this now but just to reiterate, I'm not saying she is definitely not a Bangladeshi citizen in law, I'm just saying that there are 5 different pieces of relevant legislation that affect whether you determine she is and that since neither you nor I are an expert in Bangladeshi law we are not well placed to make a judgement. It is possible to interpret the various laws in different ways.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> ... there are 5 different pieces of relevant legislation that affect whether you determine she is ...


Which ones?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> If they did that it would be them making her stateless, not the UK government. But that's not their position anyway. They are trying to say that she was _never_ a citizen of theirs, which is clearly contrary to their own laws.
> 
> It's like someone from the Home Office saying "murder is legal". We know that's nonsense because there's a load of law that says it isn't.



It isn't clearly against their own laws, its open to dispute. But in any case they have no obligation not to make her stateless, Bangladesh hasn't signed up to that convention. So if they make her stateless by revoking her citizenship (which would require them to acknowledge she is a citizen which they haven't) then the UK could still be judged to have made her stateless.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> It isn't clearly against their own laws, its open to dispute.


Well tell us how then. Ffs man you keep saying this but refuse to point out which bit of law they've got wrong here. The rest of your post is just bunkum.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Which ones?











						Shamima Begum may be a Bangladeshi Citizen After All
					

In 2015, Ms Shamima Begum, then a 15-year-old British citizen living in London, travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State. Her fate was unknown until recently when Ms Begum was discovered in a refugee camp in Syria. On 19 February 2019, the British Home Office in a letter delivered...



					www.ejiltalk.org


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Well tell us how then. Ffs man you keep saying this but refuse to point out which bit of law they've got wrong here. The rest of your post is just bunkum.



It isn't that I'm refusing to say anything, it's that you're not understanding. I'm saying it's open to dispute. A lot of law is. That's how it often works. 

For the record I have no idea. I don't know anything about Bangladeshi law other than what Ive read in relation to this. I certainly don't know how custom and practice works for example.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


>



You don’t think there is any element of playing to the gallery here?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

8ball said:


> You don’t think there is any element of playing to the gallery here?


There may be an element of that but only as a by-product of having made the correct decision in the first place.


----------



## Riklet (Feb 8, 2020)

I think their reasoning that she is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent is seriously poor and problematic reasoning. Clearly the gov have the court case fixed tho.

Not saying I agree with her being allowed back, but im uncomfortable with people of different backgrounds being stripped of their citizenship no matter what theyve done. Dangerous precedent.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

Riklet said:


> Not saying I agree with her being allowed back, but im uncomfortable with people of different backgrounds being stripped of their citizenship no matter what theyve done.


It's not a case of "no matter what they've done".


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> It is possible to interpret the various laws in different ways.



Yes, but there's no reasonable interpretation of what's written that leads to the conclusion she's not Bangladeshi.  Neither you nor anyone else has been able to offer one.  The closest anyone has come is her expert (who ws paid to make that point), but his arguments were riddled with numerous obvious errors.  It's ridiculous to assert that it's disputable without offering any sensible grounds for dispute.  But we're going round in circles; probably best to disagree on that point.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

Riklet said:


> I think their reasoning that she is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent is seriously poor and problematic reasoning.



You think they're wron about the Bangladeshi law?  How so, specifically?


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> For the record I have no idea. I don't know anything about Bangladeshi law...



Finally something we agree on.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Shamima Begum may be a Bangladeshi Citizen After All
> 
> 
> In 2015, Ms Shamima Begum, then a 15-year-old British citizen living in London, travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State. Her fate was unknown until recently when Ms Begum was discovered in a refugee camp in Syria. On 19 February 2019, the British Home Office in a letter delivered...
> ...


Your own link debunks your entire argument:


> However, it is abundantly clear that Ms Begum is legally a citizen of Bangladesh until she attains the age of 21 years. Thus, the claims of the Government of Bangladesh and some others that Ms Begum is not a Bangladeshi citizen owing to the fact that she does not hold a Bangladeshi passport or any other proof of citizenship, has never submitted any application for dual nationality, and has never visited Bangladesh, have no legal basis.


She is still not 21.


----------



## Rob Ray (Feb 8, 2020)

UK: Does its level best to avoid taking responsibility for a person brought up in Britain currently held for crimes committed overseas, going so far as to work up a technicality that this person who has never lived in Bangladesh is actually Bangladeshi.

Also UK: Is putting 50 people onto a charter flight to Jamaica after they've served their time for crimes committed in Britain, who had previously been given settled status and who have lived in Britain for years, on the grounds Jamaica should take responsibility for people brought up in Jamaica.

Migration politics: It's basically just self-serving shit.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

Rob Ray said:


> UK: Does its level best to avoid taking responsibility for a person brought up in Britain currently held for crimes committed overseas, going so far as to work up a technicality that this person who has never lived in Bangladesh is actually Bangladeshi.
> 
> Also UK: Is putting 50 people onto a charter flight to Jamaica after they've served their time for crimes committed in Britain, who had previously been given settled status and who have lived in Britain for years, on the grounds Jamaica should take responsibility for people brought up in Jamaica.
> 
> Migration politics: It's basically just self-serving shit.



As is most of the law, to be fair.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> Finally something we agree on.



And neither do you. The difference is you are insistent that you know despite your ignorance. But let's leave it there.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> There may be an element of that but only as a by-product of having made the correct decision in the first place.



There's quite a lot of playing to the gallery. 

But it might be hard for you to tell. 

Since you are the gallery in this instance.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Your own link debunks your entire argument:
> 
> She is still not 21.



But she will be. And in any case that doesn't alter the fact a Bangladeshi court could choose to rule she had become a subject of a hostile power.

E2A: and just to be clear you still haven't understood my argument.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> And neither do you. The difference is you are insistent that you know despite your ignorance. But let's leave it there.



Actually, I do. But there you go.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> But she will be. And in any case that doesn't alter the fact a Bangladeshi court could choose to rule she had become a subject of a hostile power.
> 
> E2A: and just to be clear you still haven't understood my argument.



She might not make it to 21.

But, what matters is her age at the date of deprivation of her British citizenship, not her current age at any given time.

It doesn't matter for the purposes of English law what a Bangladeshi court rules now; that would be them making her stateless, not the UK.

And this hostile state stuff is absolutely bonkers. 

Funny how it's other people's fault that none of them can follow your 'argument', rather than the fact that your argument is incoherent.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> But she will be.



 Absolutely desperate stuff!

But glad to see that you now agree that she _is_ legally a Bangladeshi citizen. We got there in the end!



> And in any case that doesn't alter the fact a Bangladeshi court could choose to rule she had become a subject of a hostile power.



In which case it would be _them_ who make her stateless.



> E2A: and just to be clear you still haven't understood my argument.



Is it any wonder? It seems to be constantly changing.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Absolutely desperate stuff!
> 
> But glad to see that you now agree that she _is_ legally a Bangladeshi citizen. We got there in the end!
> 
> ...



Sigh. I don't know why I'm bothering really. 

I'm saying that whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen is the subject of dispute. I'm not saying she is or she isn't (in legal terms - obviously in any real sense she is not, she has never been there). 

Absolutely, if when she turns 21 they acknowledge her citizenship and then revoke it, they would make her stateless. But that's fine because they are not signed up to the convention that the UK is signed up to. 

Nothing about my argument is changing. You're just not very bright.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> You said that you don't think courts are neutral, and you expect UK courts to agree with the UK govt., yet time & time again they have ruled against the govt.
> 
> Frankly bizarre.



While I remember, since you're still here - do you think courts are neutral?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm saying that whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen is the subject of dispute.


 Not by anyone with a reasonable understanding of the law, as you have unwittingly demonstrated yourself with the above link.


> But that's fine because they are not signed up to the convention that the UK is signed up to.


Well that's ok then. 


> You're just not very bright.


"It's not me. It's everyone else"!


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sigh. I don't know why I'm bothering really.
> 
> I'm saying that whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen is the subject of dispute. I'm not saying she is or she isn't (in legal terms - obviously in any real sense she is not, she has never been there).



That the world is flat, or that the holocaust happened, or the efficacy of vaccines are the subject of dispute by crackpots.  I'm more interested in what could *sensibly* be said to be *reasonably* disputable.

It's utterly bizarre for you to effectively assert there are such grounds in this case without being able to say what they are!

It'd be like someone saying Harold Shipman's conviction might be wrong in law, without being able to suggest any reason why (simply because they want it to be).  And then claiming that the fact they make that strange claim means it's a matter if dispute.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> While I remember, since you're still here - do you think courts are neutral?



The evidence is that they are, due to the fact that they often rule against the government. 

Your claim otherwise appears to be designed to support your own very confused point of view on this matter.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> It's utterly bizarre for you to effectively assert there are such grounds in this case without being able to say what they are!


No, no, no._ It's your fault_ for not understanding him!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Not by anyone with an understanding of the law, as you have pointed out yourself.
> 
> Well that's ok then.



At no time have I said that she is clearly a Bangladeshi citizen and it is beyond dispute. I have consistently said that it is disputable and there are arguments both ways. You will not be able to quote anything I have said about her being a Banglashi citizen and that being beyond dispute. What I have said consistently is that UK and Bangladeshi courts will dispute whether she is a citizen - if it ever gets to a Bangladeshi court of course which it may never do. That's how law often works, it's about interpretation. 

I'm not saying that it is "OK" that Bangladesh could make her stateless. I am just saying that Bangladesh is not legally bound by the international convention on not making people stateless because they are not signed up to it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> While I remember, since you're still here - do you think courts are neutral?



Of course they're not.  But that doesn't mean they're always wrong, does it?  You have to look at the facts and merits of each case, in detail.  Which is something you don't seem to be able to do.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> The evidence is that they are, due to the fact that they often rule against the government.
> 
> Your claim otherwise appears to be designed to support your own very confused point of view on this matter.





It's amazing how people who would normally scoff at naive liberalism are quite happy to indulge it on this particular thread isn't it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I am just saying that Bangladesh is not legally bound by the international convention on not making people stateless because they are not signed up to it.



What bearing would any decision by a Bangladeshi court to deprive her of Bangladeshi citizenship now have on the question of the legality of the Home Sec's decision to deprive her of British citizenship last year?  You fundamentally just don't understand how the law works, I'm afraid.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> Of course they're not.  But that doesn't mean they're always wrong, does it?  You have to look at the facts and merits of each case, in detail.  Which is something you don't seem to be able to do.



I'm perfectly capable. I can see that it is possible to make an argument that she is a Bangladeshi citizen in law and it is possible to make an argument that she is not a Bangladeshi citizen in law. I am not sure how you are seriously still disagreeing with this since you earlier posted material that says exactly the same thing. 

At least you acknowledge that courts - whether in the UK or Bangladesh - are not neutral institutions though, unlike cupid_stunt


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> At no time have I said that she is clearly a Bangladeshi citizen and it is beyond dispute.


I know. That's the problem.


> I have consistently said that it is disputable and there are arguments both ways.


I know. But you haven't been able to outline what those arguments are and why they stand.


> You will not be able to quote anything I have said about her being a Banglashi citizen and that being beyond dispute.


I won't try. Honest! You're confusing yourself now.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I have consistently said that it is disputable and there are arguments both ways.



Ok, so, with reference to Bangladeshi law, what, specifically, are the arguments that she is not a Bangladeshi citizen?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> You fundamentally just don't understand how the law works, I'm afraid.


This is despite having had it explained to him in baby terms.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> What bearing would any decision by a Bangladeshi court to deprive her of Bangladeshi citizenship now have on the question of the legality of the Home Sec's decision to deprive her of British citizenship last year?  You fundamentally just don't understand how the law works, I'm afraid.



I love that I'm explaining this to you while you're telling me I don't understand it. 

If this were to happen and she appealed again, then the case could be made that by refusing her appeal the UK had made her stateless. So it has bearing. Additionally the argument could be made that since Bangladesh is likely to revoke her citizenship entirely legally if indeed Bangladesh ever recognised it, the UK would be making her de facto stateless.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I love that I'm explaining this to you while you're telling me I don't understand it.
> 
> If this were to happen and she appealed again, then the case could be made that by refusing her appeal the UK had made her stateless. So it has bearing.



This is absolutely and completely wrong in law.  That's simply not how the law works.  The appeal is about the the legality of the original decision.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> I love that I'm explaining this to you while you're telling me I don't understand it.


He says, to the lawyer.

Give it up. You're wrong.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> If this were to happen and she appealed again, then the case could be made that by refusing her appeal the UK had made her stateless. So it has bearing. Additionally the argument could be made that since Bangladesh is likely to revoke her citizenship entirely legally if indeed Bangladesh ever recognised it, the UK would be making her de facto stateless.



How would that help her, considering you don't think the courts are neutral in this matter?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

Looks like it's roast frog for dinner then. Who wants a leg?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> This is absolutely and completely wrong in law.  That's simply not how the law works.  The appeal is about the the legality of the original decision.



And that has a bearing on the original decision.

I've posted this already but you keep asking me to list possible grounds for dispute - this is helpful so read it. 









						Shamima Begum may be a Bangladeshi Citizen After All
					

In 2015, Ms Shamima Begum, then a 15-year-old British citizen living in London, travelled to Syria to join the so-called Islamic State. Her fate was unknown until recently when Ms Begum was discovered in a refugee camp in Syria. On 19 February 2019, the British Home Office in a letter delivered...



					www.ejiltalk.org
				




Based on this:

1. Bangladeshi law requires a formal application of citizenship by descent. That doesn't mean that citizenship is not present from birth but there is no record of citizenship. The SIAC (UK body) has ruled this does not affect her citizenship of Bangladesh. But they base that on their interpretation of 5 different pieces of Bangladeshi legislation and no international body or court has upheld or struck down this ruling. 
2. Bangladeshi law says that someone can lose their citizenship even if under 21 if they come under the influence of a foreign power, and in a different piece of legislation if they come under the influence of a hostile foreign power. So were Bangladeshi courts ever to be asked to make a ruling they could argue that by joining up with Daesh she forfeited her right to citizenship at 15 years old (not something the UK can claim). 
3. Bangladesh pronounced her as not a citizen. Now the SIAC has ruled that she is a Bangladeshi citizen, based on their interpretation of Bangladeshi law. But however much Spymaster might wish this were the case, UK courts do not actually have the ability to tell brown people in other countries how they should interpret their laws. 

Right, I'm done. Life is too short and I don't believe that Spy in particular is really that interested in the law. I think his performative obsession with a teenage girl he has never met is somehow connected to something else. 

Ciao.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 8, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> How would that help her, considering you don't think the courts are neutral in this matter?



Where did I say it would help her?


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

SpackleFrog said:


> And that has a bearing on the original decision.
> 
> I've posted this already but you keep asking me to list possible grounds for dispute - this is helpful so read it.
> 
> ...



Ok, in that case I won't bother writing a refutation if each of your woefully ill-conceived 'arguments'.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

> I don't believe that Spy in particular is really that interested in the law


You'd be surprised then. Living with a lawyer for over 20 years has instilled in me more than a passing interest in the law.



Athos said:


> Ok, in that case I won't bother writing a refutation if each of your woefully ill-conceived 'arguments'.


Don't let him off that easily. I started doing it but the rugby is on.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> You'd be surprised then. Living with a lawyer for over 20 years has instilled in me more than a passing interest in the law.
> 
> 
> Don't let him off that easily. I started doing it but the rugby is on.



I'm at football, then a gig tonight.  Anyway, it's not worth the candle.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

Athos said:


> Anyway, it's not worth the candle.


I dunno. I've enjoyed his ignorant discomfort and you've given him an unholy spanking but he seems to have flounced now anyway. 

Probably for the best.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 8, 2020)

cupid_stunt said:


> The evidence is that they are, due to the fact that they often rule against the government.
> 
> Your claim otherwise appears to be designed to support your own very confused point of view on this matter.


I'm not going to get into the argument about Begum but SpackleFrog is absolutely right that the courts (and the law) are not neutral. That there is sometimes conflict between the courts and government does nothing to alter that fact.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 8, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> SpackleFrog is absolutely right that the courts (and the law) are not neutral.


Shame about the rest of the dogshit he's posted.


----------



## Athos (Feb 8, 2020)

redsquirrel said:


> I'm not going to get into the argument about Begum but SpackleFrog is absolutely right that the courts (and the law) are not neutral. That there is sometimes conflict between the courts and government does nothing to alter that fact.



That's all he's right about.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Shamima Begum can return to UK to fight for citizenship, Court of Appeal rules
					

The 20-year-old, who joined the Islamic State group in Syria, has been denied a fair hearing, judges say.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




A sad day 

Will she be arguing her case from a prison cell?


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Shamima Begum can return to UK to fight for citizenship, Court of Appeal rules
> 
> 
> The 20-year-old, who joined the Islamic State group in Syria, has been denied a fair hearing, judges say.
> ...



facebook is gonna go doolally.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Shamima Begum can return to UK to fight for citizenship, Court of Appeal rules
> 
> 
> The 20-year-old, who joined the Islamic State group in Syria, has been denied a fair hearing, judges say.
> ...



She'll have to be arrested for whatever the offence she committed is, and then put before a court and, I would imagine, be remanded.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Lots of the relevant people that could bring her home are going to be be frantically pencilling things into their diaries for the next few months.

"Trip to Syria? To go to El Hawl camp and collect Shamima Begum? Shit, sorry, washing my hair that day."


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Lots of the relevant people that could bring her home are going to be be frantically pencilling things into their diaries for the next few months.
> 
> "Trip to Syria? To go to El Hawl camp and collect Shamima Begum? Shit, sorry, washing my hair that day."



I'm sure Jemima Begun can get herself to the airport,


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> I'm sure Jemima Begun can get herself to the airport,



What? Who?


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

She's held in the secure wing of a IDP camp. In the Kurdish/SDF held territory of NE Syria, which isn't that easy to potter about in. Nearest airports would be Qamishli (controlled by the SAA, I guess she might get a cheap one way flight to Damascus...), Erbil or Sulaymaniyah (both in KRG Iraq) which would mean crossing a difficult border, something in Turkey (maybe Diyarbakir, with same issues as the KRG, probably even more so) or maybe some US military one in the area (involving a whole host of other problems).

She's not getting an airport shuttle and jumping on any Easyjet flights herself anytime soon, or ever.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

if she does get back to this sceptered isle, there is no chance she will be moving on elsewhere like ever.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> if she does get back to this sceptered isle, there is no chance she will be moving on elsewhere like ever.



why?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> why?


Brexit.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> if she does get back to this sceptered isle, there is no chance she will be moving on elsewhere like ever.



No, I think she'll be like loads of the others that have returned, plenty of them kicking about the UK freely. Or freely-ish. Maybe after some short sentence or de-radicalisation program, or probably a bit of both.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> why?




would you ?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

Looks like the government is being ordered to find a way to bring her back;

“The judgement means the government must now find a way to allow the 20-year-old to appear in court in London despite repeatedly saying it would not assist removing her from Syria.”


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No, I think she'll be like loads of the others that have returned, plenty of them kicking about the UK freely. Or freely-ish. Maybe after some short sentence or de-radicalisation program, or probably a bit of both.



looking at it from the UKG POV, they dont want her to set foot in the country again, as they dont want the public headache of trying to move her onto say Bangladesh once she is back.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 16, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> looking at it from the UKG POV, they dont want her to set foot in the country again, as they dont want the public headache of trying to move her onto say Bangladesh once she is back.



Isn't she coming back to appeal the loss of citizenship? If that fails I don't see why they won't throw her out next day. You talk about the public headache but various governments have been ruthlessly deporting completely innocent people back to bad situations for years. Doubt a few headlines will alter that.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

SEND HER TO THE HAGUE FOR TRIAL!!!11ELEVEN!!!


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> would you ?



Would I fuck! And I wasn't being facetious when I asked.

Even if she loses her case I can't imagine Bangladesh would want to take her. I wonder would she be charged and sentenced as a youth? I don't know how it works. The offence has being ongoing but surely we can't prosecute her for things she has done in another country?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

YouSir said:


> Isn't she coming back to appeal the loss of citizenship? If that fails I don't see why they won't throw her out next day. You talk about the public headache but various governments have been ruthlessly deporting completely innocent people back to bad situations for years. Doubt a few headlines will alter that.



Bangladesh has stated they will hang any IS who arrive there, so the UK won’t be able to send her to Dhaka...


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

YouSir said:


> Isn't she coming back to appeal the loss of citizenship? If that fails I don't see why they won't throw her out next day. You talk about the public headache but various governments have been ruthlessly deporting completely innocent people back to bad situations for years. Doubt a few headlines will alter that.



Throw her out to where? Is Bangladesh obliged to take her in?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bangladesh has stated they will hang any IS who arrive there, so the UK won’t be able to send her to Dhaka...




yup. if she sets foot here, shes going to use every means possible to stay.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

I'd bet anyone £50 (to the server fund) she'll win her case and stay here.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 16, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bangladesh has stated they will hang any IS who arrive there, so the UK won’t be able to send her to Dhaka...



Fair enough, didn't know that.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 16, 2020)

hope she does just annoy sun readers


----------



## Petcha (Jul 16, 2020)

Given that we’re all conducting meetings via zoom that would otherwise have been face to face, why can’t that happen here?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> Would I fuck! And I wasn't being facetious when I asked.
> 
> Even if she loses her case I can't imagine Bangladesh would want to take her. I wonder would she be charged and sentenced as a youth? I don't know how it works. The offence has being ongoing but surely we can't prosecute her for things she has done in another country?




terrorism and shit yeah they can but it wouldnt be straightforward with this one. UKG dont want to go down that rabbit hole as it could drag on for years, hence trying to just keep her as far away as possible


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 16, 2020)

Petcha said:


> Given that we’re all conducting meetings via zoom that would otherwise have been face to face, why can’t that happen here?



Risks of zoom bombing


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> terrorism and shit yeah they can but it wouldnt be straightforward with this one. UKG dont want to go down that rabbit hole as it could drag on for years, hence trying to just keep her as far away as possible



She's not a terrorist though is she? Surely the offence of lending support to a terror group(or whatever it's called) ends when she left this country?  Again, dunno enough about it. Are peoples actions whilst abroad taken into account during sentencing?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'd bet anyone £50 (to the server fund) she'll win her case and stay here.


She'll win her case, but that's a risky accumulator you're offering.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> She's not a terrorist though is she? Surely the offence of lending support to a terror group(or whatever it's called) ends when she left this country?  Again, dunno enough about it. Are peoples actions whilst abroad taken into account during sentencing?




there is some stuff about de facto threats by committing or joining a ropey cause overseas- it is designed to fill the gaps where non combatants join IS or whatever.it wouldnt be a straightforward case for the UKG i think


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 16, 2020)

I wouldn't be surprised if the government appeals this, and take it to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Jul 16, 2020)

Bugger. Gazumped by CS.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

i know that the UKG raised the idea of using a diplomatic outpost as a location for a hearing as a flailing attempt to circumvate the UK court process but were immediately slapped down by their legal lot. blue sky thinking

eta, it could be a runner if the coumtry/ region granted the mission footprint temporary extraterrotorial status for the this specific purpose but its not feasibly ngoing to happen


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> She's not a terrorist though is she? Surely the offence of lending support to a terror group(or whatever it's called) ends when she left this country?  Again, dunno enough about it. Are peoples actions whilst abroad taken into account during sentencing?


Unfortunately she's not coming back to face charges of giving 5 years of support to genocide. rape, torture, and murder. The slug is coming back for a hearing on whether it's citizenship should be restored.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Unfortunately she's not coming back to face charges of giving 5 years of support to genocide. rape, torture, and murder. The slug is coming back for a hearing on whether it's citizenship should be restored.


its. or more properly her.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> its. or more properly her.


I meant what I posted.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Unfortunately she's not coming back to face charges of giving 5 years of support to genocide. rape, torture, and murder. The slug is coming back for a hearing on whether it's citizenship should be restored.



I would imagine she would be arrested as soon as she steps foot off the plane.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

See, this is why the French are to be admired - they just paid the Iraqis to string up all their unwanteds, and now the problem has gone away...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> I would imagine she would be arrested as soon as she steps foot off the plane.


Fingers crossed. More likely she'll be granted some kind of temporary leave to remain and held in an immigration facility.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 16, 2020)

Well she's won the right to return to the UK so I guess we'll need to wait and see what happens when she does.


----------



## tim (Jul 16, 2020)

Excellent news!


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 16, 2020)

We’ll see the same thing as with the Remain lawfare actions - angsty liberals making a lot of noise and losing friends and alienating people in the process.

The government approach to immigration, deportation and ‘extremism’ will be ‘tougher’ because of this.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> See, this is why the French are to be admired - they just paid the Iraqis to string up all their unwanteds, and now the problem has gone away...


Job done


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Fingers crossed. More likely she'll be granted some kind of temporary leave to remain and held in an immigration facility.


Well she's not going to be deported from here, is she? 

Setting aside your hatred for her, can you see how this is actually a good thing. The UK govt's right to act arbitrarily in this way is being questioned and hopefully will be successfully challenged. Don't be scared of Begum.


----------



## maomao (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I meant what I posted.


You meant: 'The slug is coming back for a hearing on whether it is citizenship should be restored'?


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

When is the two minute hate scheduled for?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Well she's not going to be deported from here, is she?


Nowhere to send her. The best we can hope for now is for the legal process to be dragged out forever and for her to be detained indefinitely.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 16, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> We’ll see the same thing as with the Remain lawfare actions - angsty liberals making a lot of noise and losing friends and alienating people in the process.
> 
> The government approach to immigration, deportation and ‘extremism’ will be ‘tougher’ because of this.



don't think angry liberals are to blame for the wind rush scandal


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> facebook is gonna go doolally.



Urban is gonna go doolally.


----------



## philosophical (Jul 16, 2020)

Aren't the spooks going for the Epstein solution?
If British law is robust then she should come back and get it all out in the courts.
If the law is weak that is down to the lawmakers.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The UK govt's right to act arbitrarily in this way is being questioned and hopefully will be successfully challenged.


The government did not act arbitrarily and that's what is going to be tested. The right of a government to strip the citizenship of a dual national who takes pains to travel overeas to support a murderous rape cult.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> The government did not act arbitrarily and that's what is going to be tested. The right of a government to strip the citizenship of a dual national who takes pains to travel overeas to support a murderous rape cult.



she's not a dual national though is she is my understanding.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> she's not a dual national though is she is my understanding.


Your understanding is wrong.


----------



## tim (Jul 16, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Urban is gonna go doolally.



There's nothing more edifying than a bunch of middle-aged men frothing about a young woman who made a mistake when she was 15.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Your understanding is wrong.



Does she hold a passport for another country? Was her birth registered in another country?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> The government did not act arbitrarily and that's what is going to be tested. The right of a government to strip the citizenship of a dual national who takes pains to travel overeas to support a murderous rape cult.


whoa there. no one yet knows if they did act arbitrarily as that question is about to be decided.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 16, 2020)

Ax^ said:


> don't think angry liberals are to blame for the wind rush scandal



doubt many on here do. Not sure what it’s got to with my post


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> Does she hold a passport for another country? Was her birth registered in another country?


Lots about this on this thread. Under Bangladeshi law she was a citizen of that country by descent.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Lots about this on this thread. Under Bangladeshi law she was a citizen of that country by descent.


... according to the UK. Bangladeshi govt has different ideas.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> Does she hold a passport for another country? Was her birth registered in another country?


No, and no. Born in the UK. Parents from Bangladesh, which she's never visited. Bangladesh had no record of her existence.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... according to the UK. Bangladeshi govt has different ideas.



Two Governments thinking they can make up changes to long held laws on the spot.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Lots about this on this thread. Under Bangladeshi law she was a citizen of that country by descent.



*The Government of Bangladesh, however, stated that Begum does not hold Bangladeshi citizenship and will not be allowed to enter the country. *


So what do you do with someone who's still a relatively young woman in this case?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 16, 2020)

tim said:


> There's nothing more edifying than a bunch of middle-aged men frothing about a young woman who made a mistake when she was 15.



Precisely. Who here didn’t join a religious death cult when they were younger?


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 16, 2020)

Bring her back, treat her well, if she has broke a UK law bail her and apply due process

caveat fuxk draconian U.K. anti terrorism legislation and fuck every gammon who’s head will explode when she gets here


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Precisely. Who here didn’t join a religious death cult when they were younger?



I prefer the phrase 'New Religious Movement'.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Job done



You are starting to sound like a bit of a cunt


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... according to the UK. Bangladeshi govt has different ideas.


Because one bloke in the Bangladeshi government chooses to misinterpret their _very clear_ law, doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> You are starting to sound like a bit of a cunt


Starting? 

You haven't been here long, have you?


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

I don't care much what happens to this particular person but am glad it looks like there's going to be a proper examination of the principle on which the gov tried to take away her citizenship. The rules are apparently that they can strip you of your citizenship if "It is for the public good" and if would not "make you stateless". As a person with more than 1 citizenship but whose never lived anywhere but here I want to understand this properly, else anyone with dual citizenship, however theoretical, can be exiled from the uk for quite undefined reasons basically, and that can't be a good thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Because one bloke in the Bangladeshi government chooses to misinterpret their _very clear_ law, doesn't make it fact.


Fuck's sake. Bangladesh had no record of her at all. You choose to interpret their law as meaning that even those it has no idea exist are citizens. That is at best questionable and something to be tested in a Bangladeshi court. UK govt is playing a fast one, and in the light of Windrush, we need to stop this kind of shit. Yes, even for monsters like Begum. That she is a vile human being is irrelevant, and tbh not even in contention.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Because one bloke in the Bangladeshi government chooses to misinterpret their _very clear_ law, doesn't make it fact.



though it is a fact that she would not be given the opportunity to disembark at or even board a plane to bangaladesh now


----------



## maomao (Jul 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> You are starting to sound like a bit of a cunt


Being a cunt and Bangladeshi law are Spymaster 's two specialities apparently.


----------



## eatmorecheese (Jul 16, 2020)

...and round we go again.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> ... else anyone with dual citizenship, however theoretical, can be exiled from the uk for quite undefined reasons ...



If you call travelling to another country to join a genocidal cult whose sworn aim is to destroy your country and others, whilst raping and murdering their way across the Middle East "undefined", I suppose you have a point.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

,


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> <div class="tenor-gif-embed" data-postid="12301767" data-share-method="host" data-width="100%" data-aspect-ratio="1.6463414634146343"><a href="Chuckle Vision Barry Chuckle GIF - ChuckleVision BarryChuckle ToMeToYou - Discover & Share GIFs">Chuckle Vision Barry Chuckle GIF</a> from <a href="Chucklevision GIFs | Tenor">Chucklevision GIFs</a></div><script type="text/javascript" async src="https://tenor.com/embed.js"></script>


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> If you call travelling to another country to join a genocidal cult whose sworn aim is to destroy your country and others whilst raping their way across the Middle East "undefined", I suppose you have a point.


Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

broken britain


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> If you call travelling to another country to join a genocidal cult whose sworn aim is to destroy your country and others, whilst raping and murdering their way across the Middle East "undefined", I suppose you have a point.



did isis fuck your mum


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> If you call travelling to another country to join a genocidal cult whose sworn aim is to destroy your country and others, whilst raping and murdering their way across the Middle East "undefined", I suppose you have a point.



Could also apply to illegal invasions of certain Middle East countries with participants claiming that a god was on their side...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


>




shit gif fail


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> shit gif fail


just copy the link of wherever it's hosted


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.


And it's worse than that. It creates a precedent that every single person born in the UK to Bangladeshi parents is also _potentially_ a Bangladeshi citizen (up to the age of 21 only, iirc), whether they want to be or not, whether they have ever expressed any interest in it or not (Begum hasn't), or indeed, whether or not they even know this is the case in Bangladeshi law (why would they), and can have their British citizenship taken away from them on that basis. It instantly creates a group of thousands of second-class citizens.

But hey, Begum's a cunt so anything the UK govt does to her is ok. Arbitrary use of power is ok.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 16, 2020)

tim said:


> There's nothing more edifying than a bunch of middle-aged men frothing about a young woman who made a mistake when she was 15.



"A mistake" is a very mild way of describing joining a bunch of bloodthirsty religious maniac murderers.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> did isis fuck your mum



Are you pissed? Poor taste quip that. And I expect those people whose mothers and sisters and friends have been held as sex slaves might find it even more so. Go and have a watch some of the testimonials from Yazidi women.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.



You're saying this more clearly and concisely than anyone else on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Are you pissed? Poor taste quip that. And I expect those people who's mothers and sisters and friends have been held as sex slaves might find it even more so. Go and have a watch some of the testimonials from Yazidi women.


poor taste or indeed no taste at all is something at the heart of the urban experience


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

Yeah exactly littlebabyjesus . Would probably apply to all Jews as well, for example, as I think you are legally entitled to Israeli citizenship just like that whether you have any desire to ever set foot there or not. And loads of others, I think Irish descent is reasonably generously interpreted by Ireland as well.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> You're saying this more clearly and concisely than anyone else on this thread.


yeh but the principle which she decries is the one i am relying on for the transportation of the former people to the south atlantic industrial zone


----------



## miss direct (Jul 16, 2020)

How's she meant to get back? Isn't the border from Syria to Turkey closed? Can't imagine Turkey will welcome her...although Brits don't need a visa anymore. Although she's not got a passport to enter with...


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> poor taste or indeed no taste at all is something at the heart of the urban experience



Indeed, just thought for a second that men making rape jokes might be beyond the pale. Silly me.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Are you pissed? Poor taste quip that. And I expect those people whose mothers and sisters and friends have been held as sex slaves might find it even more so. Go and have a watch some of the testimonials from Yazidi women.



no but if I wanted to hear from revenge porn fantasists and capital punishment cheerleading I would be visiting less enlightened Internet forums


it’s called moral consistency


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> no but if I wanted to hear from revenge porn fantasists and capital punishment cheerleading I would be visiting less enlightened Internet forums
> 
> 
> it’s called moral consistency



Does your ‘moral consistency’ apply to rape? Or do you not make cracks about some rapes?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> did isis fuck your mum


She died of cancer 10 years before they were a thing. But thanks for that.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> I think Irish descent is reasonably generously interpreted by Ireland as well.




Shhh, this is how we get rid of Spymaster


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And it's worse than that. It creates a precedent that every single person born in the UK to Bangladeshi parents is also _potentially_ a Bangladeshi citizen (up to the age of 21 only, iirc), whether they want to be or not, whether they have ever expressed any interest in it or not (Begum hasn't), and can have their British citizenship taken away from them on that basis. It instantly creates a group of thousands of second-class citizens.


Don't think it creates a precedent, exactly. However absurd it may be, the way UK law already sees it is that anyone born in the UK with a Bangladeshi parent automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship at birth.

Begun has no chance on this, it seems, and there is already a preliminary UK judgment that she is Bangadeshi. Although if she comes back to the UK, the prospect of her being made de facto stateless by the government and then being made a refugee on account of her statelessness does show how stupid the law is.

The real legal question is about whether it is rational to deem her a security risk, rather than her nationality.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Yeah if that was what the law was, fine, but it's not. It just says "if its for the public good and you wont be stateless". Plenty of people i'm sure they'd quite like to remove and dump elsewhere who could be squeezed into that completely vague principle.



Well this might hold water if you were able to provide other examples of dual nationals being 'unjustly' stripped of their British citizenship. Last time this came up no one was able to provide a single example. The _massive_ majority of those of us with dual nationality manage to retain them by not joining ISIS.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

Whatever your views are on her it was obvious that she would end up back in the UK at some point (unless she met with an unfortunate accident in the camp). Legally it always looked like a dumb decision from a faux hard man playing at being tough.  Playing to the crowd instead of just getting on doing sensible and effective government, the same shit that has thousands needlessly die and more to come.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 16, 2020)

Let's move on from a rather harsh and unpleasant comment, shall we?

Nobody wants to resurrect other examples of so-called hilarious comments made about late family, and sexual assaults in the past.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Don't think it creates a precedent, exactly. However absurd it may be, the way UK law already sees it is that anyone born in the UK with a Bangladeshi parent automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship at birth.


It creates a precedent in that this is the first time this disgusting piece of sophistry has actually been successfully used, if it is successful. There were previous cases of men over the age of 21 who argued against it successfully in court on the basis of being over 21, but this particular bit of cunty law hasn't actually been tested properly wrt someone under 21 before Begum. Sometimes important principles need to be defended in cases involving the very worst people. If reasonable law only applies to 'reasonable' people, we're in a very dangerous place.


----------



## tim (Jul 16, 2020)

ElizabethofYork said:


> "A mistake" is a very mild way of describing joining a bunch of bloodthirsty religious maniac murderers.



There's little more problematic than youthful idealism, is there?

Anyway, as I have said earlier in tthere are peope who have killed, tortured and maimed in the various combatant groups in Northern Ireland freely walking the streets and participating in public life and that doesn't seem to be too problematic. Are Protestant Catholic and Cof E  maniac murderers somehow different?


----------



## DownwardDog (Jul 16, 2020)

miss direct said:


> How's she meant to get back? Isn't the border from Syria to Turkey closed? Can't imagine Turkey will welcome her...although Brits don't need a visa anymore. Although she's not got a passport to enter with...



Cross the border with Iraq and turn herself in. Get arrested and deported to the UK for illegally entering Iraq.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

tim said:


> There's little more problematic than youthful idealism, is there?
> 
> Anyway, as I have said earlier in tthere are peope who have killed, tortured and maimed in the various combatant groups in Northern Ireland freely walking the streets and participating in public life and that doesn't seem to be too problematic. Are Protestant Catholic and Cof E  maniac murderers somehow different?



Let's not forget former (and probably some current) members of the British Army tied up in that whole thing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It creates a precedent in that this is the first time this disgusting piece of sophistry has actually been successfully used ...


Bollocks. Hundreds of dual nationals have had a citizenship revoked by the UK, France, and quite a few others.

Bahrain stripped 140 all at the same time!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Cross the border with Iraq and turn herself in. Get arrested and deported to the UK for illegally entering Iraq.


Or get arrested, put on trial for about ten minutes, and then executed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Bollocks. Hundreds of dual nationals have had a citizenship revoked by the UK, France, and others.
> 
> Bahrain stripped 140 all at the same time!


Oh fuck off if you're not going to engage with the argument. The argument is over whether she is a dual national or not. She says she isn't. Bangladesh says she isn't. There are bigger issues at play here that you simply refuse to engage with.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Cross the border with Iraq and turn herself in. Get arrested and deported to the UK for illegally entering Iraq.



Iraq is dishing out death sentences to any former IS members found in the country, so maybe not her best option...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Raheem said:


> ... the way UK law already sees it is that anyone born in the UK with a Bangladeshi parent automatically has Bangladeshi citizenship at birth.



It's the way _Bangladeshi_ law sees it.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh fuck off if you're not going to engage with the argument. The argument is over whether she is a dual national or not. She says she isn't. Bangladesh says she isn't. There are bigger issues at play here that you simply refuse to engage with.



What happens in the case that she loses the challenge against her citizenship? As you say, Bangladesh has said they want nothing to do with her.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh fuck off if you're not going to engage with the argument. The argument is over whether she is a dual national or not. She says she isn't. Bangladesh says she isn't. There are bigger issues at play here that you simply refuse to engage with.


Not engaging because we're going round in circles. We did this at massive length on this thread last time.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Jul 16, 2020)

tim said:


> . Are Protestant Catholic and Cof E  maniac murderers somehow different?



Nope.  All religious extremists are cunts.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> What happens in the case that she loses the challenge against her citizenship? As you say, Bangladesh has said they want nothing to do with her.


No idea. She'll be stateless despite being born and growing up here, so the UK won't be able to deport her anywhere. If she gets back to the UK, there isn't any way of her leaving again, whatever happens in court. That's rather a big 'IF', though. UK govt certainly isn't going to help her.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Not engaging because we're going round in circles. We did this at massive length on this thread last time.
> 
> You were wrong then and you're wrong now.


You just don't want to see how you're wrong. You're stuck in a rigid way of thinking based on a particular, narrow interpretation of the situation, one that provides an excuse to the UK govt to act like total cunts. You think the legal position is cut-and-dried. It isn't.

So here's one way of phrasing the challenge: Under UK law, is it fair and reasonable for a person's right to citizenship to be dependent on the arbitrary niceties of the laws of foreign countries with which that person has no connection other than through their parents? Bimble put this perfectly. What would you be saying if this were a Jew born here from whom the British govt were attempting to remove citizenship on the basis of them being Jewish and therefore being Israeli?


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's the way _Bangladeshi_ law sees it.


Maybe, but it's the way UK law sees it that's relevant.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 16, 2020)

And back around this circular argument we go, I always expected her to win any appeal about stripping her of her right to return and still hold to the opinion that the Govt (especially given this decision was made by a politician not a court) should not have such power. Even so I don't expect her to be back anytime. The Judgement says the Govt should find a way to allow her to come back here. That's easy all they have to do is say OK her passport is still valid, she can come back to a) fight her case over citizenship and b) stand trial for her activities. That's all they need to do and what they should have done the  first time. 
This woman is effectively trapped in the badlands, The govt is not under any obligation to launch a military operation to get her home and even without the lurgy she can hardly take a taxi to the local airport and book a flight at the desk.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If reasonable law only applies to 'reasonable' people, we're in a very dangerous place.


It's immigration law. It just doesn't afford the same consideration of fairness as regular law.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> What happens in the case that she loses the challenge against her citizenship? As you say, Bangladesh has said they want nothing to do with her.


she'll be flown back to syria and provided with a parachute for her descent


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

I hope she does her 2 week quarantine.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So here's one way of phrasing the challenge: Under UK law, is it fair and reasonable for a person's right to citizenship to be dependent on the arbitrary niceties of the laws of foreign countries with which that person has no connection other than through their parents?



Yes.



> Bimble put this perfectly. What would you be saying if this were a Jew born here from whom the British govt were attempting to remove citizenship on the basis of them being Jewish and therefore being Israeli?



If that person had gone out of their way to become _directly complicit_ in genocide, rape, torture, murder and slavery, I'd say GOOD.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

MickiQ said:


> The govt is not under any obligation to launch a military operation to get her home and even without the lurgy she can hardly take a taxi to the local airport and book a flight at the desk.



The reporters who found her in the camp seemed to have little trouble getting in and out of the region...


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The reporters who found her in the camp seemed to have little trouble getting in and out of the region...



Yeah, I imagine the camp guards would happily drive her to any border meeting point.  They just want shot of her.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 16, 2020)

MadeInBedlam said:


> doubt many on here do. Not sure what it’s got to with my post



just pointing out the immigration system in the United Kingdom is already a shit show and pondering how appeasing the froth elements within it is going to make it any better

government tried to some quite questionable and has be caught out fuck em


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Does your ‘moral consistency’ apply to rape? Or do you not make cracks about some rapes?



I’ll put my hands up to a really badly judged comment on spymasters mother. 
It was ostensibly a  mama gag not a reflection on rape.

if I was a seasoned urban debator I wouldn’t have opened myself up to attack by posting it and deflecting from my actual message

the rest of my message I stand by entirely. concentrate on that


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> the rest of my message I stand by entirely. concentrate on that



That was shit too.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> I hope she does her 2 week quarantine.



At least she won't have a problem wearing a mask, she was doing it before it was cool.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> At least she won't have a problem wearing a mask, she was doing it before it was cool.



was she?


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The reporters who found her in the camp seemed to have little trouble getting in and out of the region...



They'd have had security with them, and flew into Iraq (I'd guess) and then got permission to cross from Iraq into NE Syria. And weren't detained in a camp to start. Plus a few more differences!


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> was she?



Either my joke was shit, or you're very slow, or maybe a bit of both...


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> The reporters who found her in the camp seemed to have little trouble getting in and out of the region...



Getting her out would be relatively straightforward - not without significant risk to service people, and not cheap (a replacement C-130 will cost you north of £100m, and even if goes unscathed, you're forking out for flying hours in the tens of thousands of pounds, the crew, and the team who'll go and get her) but relatively straightforward for a state with significant military capabilities, a footprint in the region, a working relationship with local players, and a planning staff who practice this stuff regularly. 

The problem is fundamentally that while a court might order a government to _allow _her to do something, it simply cannot order a government to take military action that it doesn't want to take. That's a very big line in the political sand, and one very few - regardless of their views about this individual - would be comfortable with.

It exposes - for the 67,896,423rd time  - that policy that relies on someone just repeatedly saying what the policy is to somehow make it happen doesn't work. 

By all means strip her of her citizenship, cancel her passport etc.. but then you have do _something _to actually ensure she never walks on UK soil again.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> They'd have had security with them, and flew into Iraq (I'd guess) and then got permission to cross from Iraq into NE Syria. And weren't detained in a camp to start. Plus a few more differences!


Not being accused of terrorism helps.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

It strikes me that had the country had better laws about joining murdering and raping death cults in other countries we wouldn't have a problem now.  If it was likely she'd be looking at a lot of porridge on her return I doubt many would be bothered but because its seems likely any sentence will be quite short or not even custodial at all I think that jars.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, I imagine the camp guards would happily drive her to any border meeting point.  They just want shot of her.



Some combination of that happening and then being met at the Iraqi side by UK officials of some sort is probably the least complicated way of doing it. She could get stuck on a commercial flight in cuffs with a few security leaving from the KRG to UK I guess. Turkish Airlines if she's really unlucky. That'd be the cheap way of doing it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> Getting her out would be relatively straightforward - not without significant risk to service people, and not cheap (a replacement C-130 will cost you north of £100m, and even if goes unscathed, you're forking out for flying hours in the tens of thousands of pounds, the crew, and the team who'll go and get her) but relatively straightforward for a state with significant military capabilities, a footprint in the region, a working relationship with local players, and a planning staff who practice this stuff regularly.
> 
> The problem is fundamentally that while a court might order a government to _allow _her to do something, it simply cannot order a government to take military action that it doesn't want to take. That's a very big line in the political sand, and one very few - regardless of their views about this individual - would be comfortable with.
> 
> ...



The government is appealing the appeal and asking for this judgement not to be implemented until then, so it doesn't look like she's going anywhere anytime soon.


----------



## Sprocket. (Jul 16, 2020)

Will she have to spend two weeks in quarantine?


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> It strikes me that had the country had better laws about joining murdering and raping death cults in other countries we wouldn't have a problem now.  If it was likely she'd be looking at a lot of porridge on her return I doubt many would be bothered but because its seems likely any sentence will be quite short or not even custodial at all I think that jars.



It's a shitshow all round - the Home Office were constantly running around like headless chickens whenever any of the _unwanteds _looked like they were coming back - not once did it ever occur to them to cancel passports, strip citizenship etc... as soon as it became clear what they had done, it's always at the last minute.

People going overseas to join various nasties has been a problem since the 90's, yet no government has really given much effort to making the situation clear with lots of very explicit primary legislation.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Either my joke was shit, or you're very slow, or maybe a bit of both...



I got it. I was just making sure though.


----------



## miss direct (Jul 16, 2020)

DownwardDog said:


> Cross the border with Iraq and turn herself in. Get arrested and deported to the UK for illegally entering Iraq.


Is it really that simple for someone to leave an ISI refugee camp, get across to the Iraq border and manage all of those steps, especially during covid? I can't imagine it is, nor that there is much deportation from Iraq to the UK.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> It's a shitshow all round - the Home Office were constantly running around like headless chickens whenever any of the _unwanteds _looked like they were coming back - not once did it ever occur to them to cancel passports, strip citizenship etc... as soon as it became clear what they had done, it's always at the last minute.
> 
> People going overseas to join various nasties has been a problem since the 90's, yet no government has really given much effort to making the situation clear with lots of very explicit primary legislation.


I suspect that attempts at meaningful legislation won't be far behind this case but it won't be easy. You'd think that something eminently sensible along the lines of 'if you choose to join a genocidal cult and immerse yourself in their culture for 5 years you will lose your citizenship if you hold another' would fly through, but this thread shows the difficulties attached when the bleeding hearts get involved.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

miss direct said:


> Is it really that simple for someone to leave an ISI refugee camp, get across to the Iraq border and manage all of those steps, especially during covid? I can't imagine it is, nor that there is much deportation from Iraq to the UK.



It's certainly that simple to leave the IDP camp if the guards of that camp are happy for you to leave. The last time I looked she wasn't that far from the Iraqi border so walking is certainly possible. However, it's not a safe place, it's crawling with both IS and people who hate IS, and neither would think twice about leaving her in a ditch - to the Kurds she's a slaver and a murderer, to IS she's a traitor.

I'm struggling to see why the Iraqis would let her in - UK court shenanigans aren't their problem, and they have troubles enough. It's just easier for everyone if she just ceases to be...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I suspect that attempts at meaningful legislation won't be far behind this case but it won't be easy. You'd think that something eminently sensible along the lines of 'if you choose to join a genocidal cult and immerse yourself in their culture for 5 years you will lose your citizenship if you hold another' would fly through, but this thread shows the difficulties attached when the bleeding hearts get involved.


You're ok with thousands of citizens being branded second-class? You're really ok with that?

You're a fucking disgrace.


----------



## MickiQ (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Yeah, I imagine the camp guards would happily drive her to any border meeting point.  They just want shot of her.


Perhaps so, I would stress again that I care nothing for her or what happens to her as an individual. Wouldn't bother me if she was strung up with the rest of them. My objection was and remains one of total opposition to the idea that politicians can strip UK citizenship aquired by birth (not naturalisation) from a British citizen no matter now underserving most people think she is of it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're ok with thousands of citizens being branded second-class? You're really ok with that?
> 
> You're a fucking disgrace.


Oh get fucked. Dual nationality brings quite a lot of advantages. That it should also entail a few responsibilities like "don't join ISIS" is perfectly reasonable.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

Birthplace isn't a factor for citizenship here in the UK.


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh fuck off if you're not going to engage with the argument. The argument is over whether she is a dual national or not. She says she isn't. Bangladesh says she isn't. There are bigger issues at play here that you simply refuse to engage with.



For the purposes of English law, it doesn't matter what a Bangladeshi politician claims; it only matters what English courts find the Bangladeshi law says (which is a matter of fact, rather than law).  And Bangladeshi law is really clear on the point; that she became a Bangladeshi citizen at birth (and remains so until 21, absent any explicit earlier renouncement).  I find it hard to see how she can win the substantive appeal, but, once she's back, it'll cause a tricky situation if she loses and Bangladesh refuse to take her.  She might be in a sort of limbo - immigration detention with no clear end in sight.


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I suspect that attempts at meaningful legislation won't be far behind this case but it won't be easy. You'd think that something eminently sensible along the lines of 'if you choose to join a genocidal cult and immerse yourself in their culture for 5 years you will lose your citizenship if you hold another' would fly through, but this thread shows the difficulties attached when the bleeding hearts get involved.



Would this law apply to posh mercenaries?  I do hope so.  What's Mark Thatcher up to these days I wonder?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're ok with thousands of citizens being branded second-class? You're really ok with that?
> 
> You're a fucking disgrace.


i haven't ever seen you speak up for people with british second class citizenship, for example the british overseas territories citizens. 









						Types of British nationality
					

The different types of British nationality explained - British citizen, British overseas territories citizen, British overseas citizen, British subject, British national (overseas), British protected person




					www.gov.uk


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Athos said:


> For the purposes of English law, it doesn't matter what a Bangladeshi politician claims; it only matters what English courts find the Bangladeshi law says (which is a matter of fact, rather than law).  And Bangladeshi law is really clear on the point; that she became a Bangladeshi citizen at birth (and remains so until 21, absent any explicit earlier renouncement).  I find it hard to see how she can win the substantive appeal, but, once she's back, it'll cause a tricky situation if she loses and Bangladesh refuse to take her.  She might be in a sort of limbo - immigration detention with no clear end in sight.



Have there been any other cases over the years (I mean non-IS related specifically) involving non-UK citizens living/detained here, but unable to be deported or sent anywhere else?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Would this law apply to posh mercenaries?  I do hope so.  What's Mark Thatcher up to these days I wonder?


dying, i hope


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Would this law apply to posh mercenaries?  I do hope so.  What's Mark Thatcher up to these days I wonder?



It should be fairly easy to come up with something akin to the Treason Act - just replace all the monarch stuff with 'the UK, it's laws and it's values-type guff.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Have there been any other cases over the years (I mean non-IS related specifically) involving non-UK citizens living/detained here, but unable to be deported or sent anywhere else?


Unless I'm misunderstanding something about the question, all refugees and asylum seekers.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Would this law apply to posh mercenaries?  I do hope so.



Absolutely.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> It should be fairly easy to come up with something akin to the Treason Act - just replace all the monarch stuff with 'the UK, it's laws and it's values-type guff.


oh there'd be a lot of fun arguing about its values.

judging by the current administration corruption is a very british value


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

Some countries definitely have a rule that you lose your right to citizenship if you -or even yr dad- have ever gone and joined an army of another country whether or not that’s been an enemy combatant (Slovakia has this I know because of my recent thing of getting citizenship from them). If UK has a rule like that which spells out what the things (crimes or actions) are exactly that can lose you your citizenship that might help. If you knew it was a one way ticket I mean you might think twice.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Some countries definitely have a rule that you lose your right to citizenship if you’ve gone and joined an army of another country whether or not that’s been an enemy combatant (Slovakia has this I know because of my recent thing of getting citizenship from them). If UK has a rule like that which spells out what the things (crimes or actions) are exactly that can lose you your citizenship that might help. If you knew it was a one way ticket I mean you might think twice.


i think begum never anticipated needing a return


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Some countries definitely have a rule that you lose your right to citizenship if you -or even yr dad- have ever gone and joined an army of another country whether or not that’s been an enemy combatant (Slovakia has this I know because of my recent thing of getting citizenship from them).



Which is why France offers citizenship to those who have served (honourably) in the foreign legion for a number of years.


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i think begum never anticipated needing a return


That’s probably true.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Raheem said:


> Unless I'm misunderstanding something about the question, all refugees and asylum seekers.



Yeah, but most will be in a process of getting leave to remain, or being deported somewhere where they have citizenship or to another country they first went to?

I guess this will be someone without UK citizenship, but unable to be deported anywhere, in some kind of legal limbo.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I suspect that attempts at meaningful legislation won't be far behind this case but it won't be easy. You'd think that something eminently sensible along the lines of 'if you choose to join a genocidal cult and immerse yourself in their culture for 5 years you will lose your citizenship if you hold another' would fly through, but this thread shows the difficulties attached when the bleeding hearts get involved.



“When bleeding hearts get involved”


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I suspect that attempts at meaningful legislation won't be far behind this case but it won't be easy. You'd think that something eminently sensible along the lines of 'if you choose to join a genocidal cult and immerse yourself in their culture for 5 years you will lose your citizenship if you hold another' would fly through, but this thread shows the difficulties attached when the bleeding hearts get involved.



if I only Isis had bought it's weapons from the United Kingdom she never of had this sort of problem


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I suspect that attempts at meaningful legislation won't be far behind this case but it won't be easy. You'd think that something eminently sensible along the lines of 'if you choose to join a genocidal cult and immerse yourself in their culture for 5 years you will lose your citizenship if you hold another' would fly through, but this thread shows the difficulties attached when the bleeding hearts get involved.


i wonder how this might affect anyone who becomes a member of the chinese communist party which is of course committing genocide in xinjiang


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Ax^ said:


> if I only Isis had bought it's weapons from the United Kingdom she never of had this sort of problem


Never HAVE had ...


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Have there been any other cases over the years (I mean non-IS related specifically) involving non-UK citizens living/detained here, but unable to be deported or sent anywhere else?



Quite a few instances of indefinite immigration detention which has gone on for years.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> i wonder how this might affect anyone who becomes a member of the chinese communist party which is of course committing genocide in xinjiang


Indeed. I think my earlier phrase _direct_ _complicity_ would probably become pertinent but I’d have no problem whatsoever with HMG stripping the British citizenships of any dual nationals involved in the Uighur genocide. They should.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

Athos said:


> Quite a few instances of indefinite immigration detention which has gone on for years.



Due to being unable to deport them anywhere, but also unable to give them UK citizenship? And not people that have been sentenced for a crime?


----------



## Detroit City (Jul 16, 2020)

she's a traitor and should be locked up


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

I wonder about the usefulness of an Act of Attainder...

Instead of trying to ram each, often very different, case/square pegs through X number of round holes, it would be better to have an Act of Attainder placed before the commons, the arguments made, and if passed, the result is then specific to that individual.

Personally i have no problem with someone being stripped of their citizenship - I'm uneasy with that power lying in the hands of a witless cockwomble like Priti Patel - but if a government submitted a petition to a senior court, or to parliament, and it was measured against an act of parliament outlining the circumstances under which citizenship could be annulled, I'd be permanently happy.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I wonder about the usefulness of an Act of Attainder...
> 
> Instead of trying to ram each, often very different, case/square pegs through X number of round holes, it would be better to have an Act of Attainder placed before the commons, the arguments made, and if passed, the result is then specific to that individual.
> 
> Personally i have no problem with someone being stripped of their citizenship - I'm uneasy with that power lying in the hands of a witless cockwomble like Priti Patel - but if a government submitted a petition to a senior court, or to parliament, and it was measured against an act of parliament outlining the circumstances under which citizenship could be annulled, I'd be permanently happy.


Think this would have the effect of denying politicians the ability to act tough, thereby undermining the whole point.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

let's attaint priti patel


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> she's a traitor and should be locked up



'Traitor' is not a real thing.


----------



## Detroit City (Jul 16, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Traitor' is not a real thing.


well you know what i mean


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Never HAVE had ...



Never WOULD HAVE had ...


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Traitor' is not a real thing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2020)

kebabking said:


> I wonder about the usefulness of an Act of Attainder...
> 
> Instead of trying to ram each, often very different, case/square pegs through X number of round holes, it would be better to have an Act of Attainder placed before the commons, the arguments made, and if passed, the result is then specific to that individual.
> 
> Personally i have no problem with someone being stripped of their citizenship - I'm uneasy with that power lying in the hands of a witless cockwomble like Priti Patel - but if a government submitted a petition to a senior court, or to parliament, and it was measured against an act of parliament outlining the circumstances under which citizenship could be annulled, I'd be permanently happy.



IIRC it's not a point of British law but a point of international law that you can't render a person stateless.


----------



## Struwwelpeter (Jul 16, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> she's a traitor and should be locked up


And what is a traitor?  What if your country and your ethics are in conflict?  You will be a traitor to one or the other.  It is by an accident of birth that someone owes allegiance to a country, (unless they become naturalised, in which case it is a matter of choice).  Ethics are largely chosen, although some people might have had little opportunity to explore different ethical positions or might have been coerced, groomed or forcibly persuaded (as Begum will no doubt claim).


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> IIRC it's not a point of British law but a point of international law that you can't render a person stateless.



Yeah, not really fussed about that....


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 16, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Traitor' is not a real thing.



Pretty bloody real for everyone who has been executed because of it.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 16, 2020)

Teaboy said:


> Pretty bloody real for everyone who has been executed because of it.



For her to be a traitor she must be a UK citizen. The stated position of the British state is that she is not.


----------



## Raheem (Jul 16, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> For her to be a traitor she must be a UK citizen. The stated position of the British state is that she is not.


Actually, a UK citizen at the time of the offence.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> For her to be a traitor she must be a UK citizen. The stated position of the British state is that she is not.



Oh Frank....

She _was _a traitor during the period she gave her alleigence to an enemy state _and _while she was also a British citizen. She stopped being an active traitor when she ceased to be a British citizen.

However, should she return to the UK, she could still be prosecuted for treason because, guess what, you don't cease to be a murderer when you stop murdering - she could therefore certainly be prosecuted for the treason she committed while she was a British citizen.


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

If you just step back from it a bit isnt it totally morally bankrupt to think you’re doing a cunning plan or even looking tough by saying yeah she was born here and lived here all her life until she ran away to join a death cult but now we (a country massively better resourced than yours) just can’t be arsed to deal with her so here you go bad luck Bangladesh you were too slow.  It’s pretty shameful.
150 times apparently this has been done or at least attempted by our government in recent years?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

I was under the assumption that the situation with IS wasn't covered by our ole skool treason setup?


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Due to being unable to deport them anywhere, but also unable to give them UK citizenship? And not people that have been sentenced for a crime?



I can't give any examples of specific instances, right now, but I'm sure there must be cases of peole with no right to remain, and who can't be sent to the country of their nationality becuase e.g. they're at risk of persecution there, and so are detained for a long time whilst a solution is figured out e.g. being accepted by a third country.  I'll take a look later.


----------



## kebabking (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> If you just step back from it a bit isnt it totally morally bankrupt to think you’re doing a cunning plan or even looking tough by saying yeah she was born here and lived here all her life until she ran away to join a death cult but now we (a country massively better resourced than yours) just can’t be arsed to deal with her so here you go bad luck Bangladesh you were too slow.  It’s pretty shameful.
> 150 times apparently this has been done or at least attempted by our government in recent years?



I think the Bangladesh thing is a side issue - it's purely about satisfying this stuff about rendering someone stateless - no one actually cares whether she has somewhere else to go, and we've done this to the Canadians and others (only because we were quicker than them, they were all quite happy to dump these people on us if they'd got the paperwork sorted out...).


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

Has it happened that we were too slow and got people dumped on us?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> If you just step back from it a bit isnt it totally morally bankrupt to think you’re doing a cunning plan or even looking tough by saying yeah she was born here and lived here all her life until she ran away to join a death cult but now we (a country massively better resourced than yours) just can’t be arsed to deal with her so here you go bad luck Bangladesh you were too slow.  It’s pretty shameful.


It's not a question of 'can't be arsed' it's a question of "fuck you". The government has put far more effort into keeping her out then they would have expended by bringing her back and nicking her. 


> 150 times apparently this has been done or at least attempted by our government in recent years?


And our government is more restrained than some others when it comes to stripping DN's citizenships!


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

It’s an international relations nightmare. I don’t think javid would’ve rushed so enthusiastically to do this if her loophole nationality was American or Chinese . Idk .


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> I don’t think javid would’ve rushed so enthusiastically do this if her loophole nationality was American or Chinese . Idk .



I think you're wrong. As Kebabking said, we did it to Jack Letts as well and his other nationality is Canadian.


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

Nobody’s scared of Canada though.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Nobody’s scared of Canada though.



Are we scared of Bangladesh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> Nobody’s scared of Canada though.


There are good reasons for the Americans to fear Canada Reasons to Fear Canada


----------



## bimble (Jul 16, 2020)

8ball said:


> Are we scared of Bangladesh?


Nope what can they do stop exporting cheap clothes to us ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

bimble said:


> It’s an international relations nightmare. I don’t think javid would’ve rushed so enthusiastically to do this if her loophole nationality was American or Chinese . Idk .


If she held us nationality they'd have done her in with drone fired hellfire missiles


----------



## cupid_stunt (Jul 16, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> There are good reasons for the Americans to fear Canada Reasons to Fear Canada



That link is fucking funny. 



> Excessive politeness only makes sense as cover for something truly sinister. But what?
> 
> Decriminalization of marijuana and acceptance of gay marriage without corresponding collapse of social institutions indicate Canada may, in fact, be indestructible.


----------



## philosophical (Jul 16, 2020)

Sympathy for victims of grooming stops if the child is brown, confirm racists
					

Shamima Begum is undeserving of your sympathy, according to racists this afternoon.




					newsthump.com


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

philosophical said:


> Sympathy for victims of grooming stops if the child is brown, confirm racists
> 
> 
> Shamima Begum is undeserving of your sympathy, according to racists this afternoon.
> ...


I guess these fucking idiots must've missed the case of Saffiyah Shaikh, who just got banged up for 14 years then.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 16, 2020)

philosophical said:


> Sympathy for victims of grooming stops if the child is brown, confirm racists
> 
> 
> Shamima Begum is undeserving of your sympathy, according to racists this afternoon.
> ...



Christ. Rape jokes and now whataboutery using child rape victims. The sewers are being lifted today.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

philosophical said:


> Sympathy for victims of grooming stops if the child is brown, confirm racists
> 
> 
> Shamima Begum is undeserving of your sympathy, according to racists this afternoon.
> ...


But what do you think?


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What would you be saying if this were a Jew born here from whom the British govt were attempting to remove citizenship on the basis of them being Jewish and therefore being Israeli?



That's not analogous: Jews aren't automatically Israeli citizens at birth.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What would you be saying if this were a Jew born here from whom the British govt were attempting to remove citizenship on the basis of them being Jewish and therefore being Israeli?


That you're talking bollocks again


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You choose to interpret their law as meaning that even those it has no idea exist are citizens. That is at best questionable and something to be tested in a Bangladeshi court.



Is it "questionable"? Bangladeshi law seems quite straightforward on that point, and the idea that those born to Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi citizens seems to have been accepted a number of times by English courts. 

In any event,  it doesn't need to be tested in Bangladesh for the English courts to make a finding of fact about Bangladeshi law; that's not how English courts deal with questions of foreign law.


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

But to be honest, it doesn't have to be a meritorious argument for her to get what she wants i.e. back to the UK.  She knows that if she can get back under the pretext of there being a valid appeal which can't be fairly conducted in her absence, she's safe - she could never be sent back, or to Bangladesh, or elsewhere.  She'd probably be locked up for a while whilst there were wranglings, but, eventually, she'll be released.  And HMG know that, too, and so I'm sure will be looking to appeal.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 16, 2020)

Well how does she get back? She can't just get on a plane and I cant see the government finding one.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Athos said:


> And HMG know that, too, and so I'm sure will be looking to appeal.


They've already said they are, and applied for the last decision to be stayed pending their appeal. So she'll stay where she is, at least for the time being.


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> They've already said they are, and applied for the last decision to be stayed pending their appeal. So she'll stay where she is, at least for the time being.



It doesn't have permission to appeal, yet, and may not get it.  It'll have to demonstrate a significant failing in the Appeal Court's reasoning, and, although I haven't read the judgement yet, it's hard to see what's wrong in law with the proposation that the right to a fair trial trumps other concerns.


----------



## equationgirl (Jul 16, 2020)

Can the rape stuff please be stopped on this thread? Thanks.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Athos said:


> Is it "questionable"? Bangladeshi law seems quite straightforward on that point, and the idea that those born to Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi citizens seems to have been accepted a number of times by English courts.
> 
> In any event,  it doesn't need to be tested in Bangladesh for the English courts to make a finding of fact about Bangladeshi law; that's not how English courts deal with questions of foreign law.


Two separate things here. 1. Automatic right to citizenship, or 2. Automatically _is a citizen. _Can the latter be enforced by a UK court?

Where we are talking about somebody the Bangladeshi authorities have no knowledge of, we are in the rarefied territory of a hypothetical citizenship that nobody knows exists, least of all the person in question - and can that mean they are a citizen, even without the knowledge of either them or the state they're supposesdly a citizen of? That could be tested in a UK court, and there could be various angles to take for it - it's very obviously discriminatory, for starters, and it is de facto racist. If this case were ever to make it to the Supreme Court, I would be utterly astounded if that court reached any conclusion other than that this is a discriminatory position and that a person with no knowledge of their hypothetical citizenship of a place they've never been to cannot be forced to accept that citizenship against their will. Probably will never end up there, but I'll take a £50 to the server fund bet with anyone here that this would be struck down by the Supreme Court, which would deem the UK to have acted in such a way as to make a person stateless and thus acted against its own rules.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ... a person with no knowledge of their hypothetical citizenship of a place they've never been to cannot be forced to accept that citizenship against their will.



This is where you're going wrong. She isn't being forced to accept Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladeshi law automatically confers that citizenship upon her until she is 21 (after which she has to apply to retain it). So the issue is, did the revocation of her British citizenship render her stateless, to which the answer must be no, as found by the SIAC hearing.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

dylanredefined said:


> Well how does she get back? She can't just get on a plane and I cant see the government finding one.



A few options have been discussed already, have you read the thread?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> This is where you're going wrong. She isn't being forced to accept Bangladeshi citizenship. Bangladeshi law automatically confers that citizenship upon her until she is 21 (after which she has to apply to retain it). So the issue is did the revocation of her British citizenship render her stateless, to which the answer must be no, as found by the SIAC hearing.


Oh yes she is. Her lack knowledge of that state of affairs and lack of consent to it is key. That's clearly discriminatory towards British citizens who happen to have relations in countries with this kind of provision. And as I said, it is de facto racist as it puts thousands of British citizens in a position where they are considered dual nationals and treated differently because of that fact due purely to their ethnicity.

I'm amazed you don't see this, tbh. There are different angles to attack this from in court, and 'it's racist' is a pretty strong one. Other parts of the law are then pulled in. You also shouldn't disregard the power of 'natural justice'. This is clearly unjust, and that does matter in higher courts - they'll find a way to rule against it if they can if they feel that is the best way to serve natural justice.  Anyway, take my £50 bet.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh yes she is. Her lack knowledge of that state of affairs and lack of consent to it is key. That's clearly discriminatory towards British citizens who happen to have relations in countries with this kind of provision. And as I said, it is de facto racist as it puts thousands of British citizens in a position where they are considered dual nationals and treated differently because of that fact due purely to their ethnicity.
> 
> I'm amazed you don't see this, tbh. There are different angles to attack this from in court, and 'it's racist' is a pretty strong one. Other parts of the law are then pulled in. Anyway, take my £50 bet.



So you've now changed your position from 'she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen' to 'she's a Bangladeshi citizen but because she didn't know about it, it shouldn't count'. 

Is that correct?


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

Athos said:


> But to be honest, it doesn't have to be a meritorious argument for her to get what she wants i.e. back to the UK.  She knows that if she can get back under the pretext of there being a valid appeal which can't be fairly conducted in her absence, she's safe - she could never be sent back, or to Bangladesh, or elsewhere.  She'd probably be locked up for a while whilst there were wranglings, but, eventually, she'll be released.  And HMG know that, too, and so I'm sure will be looking to appeal.



If she's lucky she can do her jail time during the other legal wranglings. They are looking to appeal btw.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> So you've now changed your position from 'she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen' to 'she's a Bangladeshi citizen but because she didn't know about it, it shouldn't count'.
> 
> Is that correct?


I haven't changed my position at all. She says she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen, and so does the Bangladeshi government. The UK government is declaring her to be a Bangladeshi citizen against her will and against her knowledge and without a single record of that 'fact' anywhere either in the UK or in Bangladesh, and also against the will and knowledge of the Bangladeshi government. It's also the case that this ruling is discriminatory and de facto racist, which changes the legal status of thousands of British people at one fell swoop. In a court, you go with the argument that you can win with - there may be more than one to choose from. The men previously in court over this went with the 'we're over 21, so it doesn't count' argument and won. But that doesn't mean that they'd have lost if they had happened to be under 21. That case wasn't presented - didn't need to be.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Christ. Rape jokes and now whataboutery using child rape victims. The sewers are being lifted today.





equationgirl said:


> Can the rape stuff please be stopped on this thread? Thanks.



It is not rape jokes, it is satire, and fairly to the point:

“Shamima Begum has been groomed to join a terrorist organisation, marry a man at the age of 15 and then gave birth to several children, all of which have died."


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

“If a white girl had been through all that before the age of 20 then I’m pretty sure we’d be looking at universal sympathy.

“But she’s a Bangladeshi-British girl with a headscarf on. So ‘sod her’ seems to be the consensus, which is wrong.”


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She says she isn't a Bangladeshi citizen, and so does the Bangladeshi government.


What she says is neither here nor there. What the Bangladeshi government says, one would think should hold weight but their position is directly opposed to what their own law says. This isn't really in dispute any more (except by the Bangladeshi government and you it seems).


> The UK government is declaring her to be a Bangladeshi citizen against her will and against her knowledge ...


No. They are not. The UK government are saying 'under Bangladeshi law she is automatically a citizen of that country. Therefore revoking her British citizenship does not de jure, make her stateless'.


> It's also the case that this ruling is discriminatory and de facto racist.


Which ruling? The SIAC one said that pulling her citizenship didn't make her stateless, which is a statement of fact.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 16, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> A few options have been discussed already, have you read the thread?



there's alot to read, you could just as easily have answered the question. I've been in and out of the thread and would like to know how she gets back home?


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Two separate things here. 1. Automatic right to citizenship, or 2. Automatically _is a citizen. _Can the latter be enforced by a UK court?
> 
> Where we are talking about somebody the Bangladeshi authorities have no knowledge of, we are in the rarefied territory of a hypothetical citizenship that nobody knows exists, least of all the person in question - and can that mean they are a citizen, even without the knowledge of either them or the state they're supposesdly a citizen of? That could be tested in a UK court, and there could be various angles to take for it - it's very obviously discriminatory, for starters, and it is de facto racist. If this case were ever to make it to the Supreme Court, I would be utterly astounded if that court reached any conclusion other than that this is a discriminatory position and that a person with no knowledge of their hypothetical citizenship of a place they've never been to cannot be forced to accept that citizenship against their will. Probably will never end up there, but I'll take a £50 to the server fund bet with anyone here that this would be struck down by the Supreme Court, which would deem the UK to have acted in such a way as to make a person stateless and thus acted against its own rules.



The English courts have decided that, under Bangladeshi law people born of Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi nationals until the age of 21.  English courts decide questions of foreign law as questions of fact; for the purposes of deciding whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen insafar as that's relevant to the application of English law, no decision by a Bangladeshi court is required, and comments by Bangladeshi politicians are irrelevant.

It's not hypothetical citizenship; it's legal citizenship, as is all citizenship by birth.  A child born in secret in the UK doesn't know they're a UK citizen, and neither does the state, but they are.

And all citizenship is racist insofar as it descriminates against peole based on their nationality!

I'm willing to bet £50 to the server fund that, if English courts ultimately decide that the Home Secretary acted unlawfully, it won't be on the basis that her being a Bangladeshi citizen (under the application of Bangladeshi law) is discriminatory.  (It'll be on the basis of deviation from the practice of extra-territorial application of articles 2 and 3 ECHR, or that she's not threat.)

Honestly, that's the weakest part of her case; as you'll see from the judgement in the Court of Appeal (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/WP-Begum-Judgment-NCN.pdf), she sought judicial review of the decision not to grant her Leave to Enter (to pursue her case), and two of the three preliminary findings of the SIAC - it's finding that she wasn't made stateless is the only thing she didn't seek to judicially review.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 16, 2020)

Athos said:


> The English courts have decided that, under Bangladeshi law people born of Bangladeshi parents are automatically Bangladeshi nationals until the age of 21.  English courts decide questions of foreign law as questions of fact; for the purposes of deciding whether or not she is a Bangladeshi citizen insafar as that's relevant to the application of English law, no decision by a Bangladeshi court is required, and comments by Bangladeshi politicians are irrelevant.
> 
> It's not hypothetical citizenship; it's legal citizenship, as is all citizenship by birth.  A child born in secret in the UK doesn't know they're a UK citizen, and neither does the state, but they are.
> 
> ...


We'll have to disagree about it being weak. It's clearly discriminatory and racist. If they don't take that line in court, then the bet will be off, as that particular aspect of it won't have been tested.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We'll have to disagree about it being weak. It's clearly discriminatory and racist. If they don't take that line in court, then the bet will be off, as that particular aspect of it won't have been tested.


They won't. The government is bulletproof on it. As Athos says to win this appeal they will have to successfully argue something else.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 16, 2020)

fuk it


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 16, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> It is not rape jokes, it is satire, and fairly to the point:
> 
> “Shamima Begum has been groomed to join a terrorist organisation, marry a man at the age of 15 and then gave birth to several children, all of which have died."



Its bollocks is what it is. Firstly, using the the victims of rape gangs for ‘satire’ is vile. Another example of how worthless their lives are, that they can be summoned up as satire to make a shit political point.

Secondly, the aim: a blatant attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence. To absolve Begum of any kind of personal responsibility and to suggest everything is just completely determined by external conditions is just garbage. The attempt to portray those who question that piss poor logic as racist thickos isn’t worthy of debate


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We'll have to disagree about it being weak. It's clearly discriminatory and racist. If they don't take that line in court, then the bet will be off, as that particular aspect of it won't have been tested.



It's hard to see how she can take that line, now; the case has been remitted to the SIAC to reconsider its second preliminary finding (the extra-territoriality point) (and the refusal to grant Leave to Enter has been quashed).  But the first preliminary finding - that she wasn't made stateless - remains intact.  I'm not sure that will be revisited (unless there's it's somehow worked into an appeal about the SIAC's final determination of the deprivation appeal).

And, from reading this original decision on the preliminary points by the SIAC (https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/begum-v-home-secretary-siac-judgment.pdf) it doesn't look she pursued the discrimination argument to attack the statelessness issue.  To my mind, it's inconceivable that they wouldn't have if there'd been any prospect of success.


----------



## LDC (Jul 16, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> there's alot to read, you could just as easily have answered the question. I've been in and out of the thread and would like to know how she gets back home?



Easier for you to read than me to type out all the possible ways, some complicated, that have been suggested. There's quite a few possible options, kebabking and myself have made a few.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 16, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Its bollocks is what it is. Firstly, using the the victims of rape gangs for ‘satire’ is vile. Another example of how worthless their lives are, that they can be summoned up as satire to make a shit political point.
> 
> Secondly, the aim: a blatant attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence. To absolve Begum of any kind of personal responsibility and to suggest everything is just completely determined by external conditions is just garbage.



Where did Newsthump use victims of rape gangs for satire, you hysterical twonk?

There's no moral equivalence needed, either a 15 year is too young to consent or they ain't. Where are you on this one?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 16, 2020)

Athos said:


> ... the matter has been remitted to the SIAC to reconsider its second preliminary finding (the etra-territoriality point)



Can you precis that? I don't fancy reading a 37 page judgement tonight.


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Can you precis that? I don't fancy reading a 37 page judgement tonight.


Just read paras 1 to 6, and 92 to 129.


----------



## Athos (Jul 16, 2020)

For completenss, I'll put the original JR decision up, too:  Begum v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 74 (Admin) (07 February 2020)


----------



## LiamO (Jul 16, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> she's a traitor and should be locked up



Blah, blah, blah

Proud 'Traitors' all


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 17, 2020)

LiamO said:


> Blah, blah, blah
> 
> Proud 'Traitors' all
> 
> ...


  Don't remember any of them bleating to come home when their islamic paradise of mass executions and slavery collapsed ,but, not a great history buff so might be mistaken.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2020)

dylanredefined said:


> Don't remember any of them bleating to come home when their islamic paradise of mass executions and slavery collapsed ,but, not a great history buff so might be mistaken.


Or your memory isn't very good


----------



## klang (Jul 17, 2020)

not-bono-ever said:


> fuk it


I've got a couple of spare Cs if you want to borrow one?


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> Or your memory isn't very good


That as well.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 17, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> she's a traitor and should be locked up



Wonder what has Britain ever done to anyone that would lead them to oppose it, in any way?


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Wonder what has Britain ever done to anyone that would lead them to oppose it, in any way?



What are you saying here? That there's some justification for what she did?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 17, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Wonder what has Britain ever done to anyone that would lead them to oppose it, in any way?



They were fighting/beheading/torturing _for_ a caliphate. A religious state. You seem to suggest some progressive anti-imperialist impulse at work?


----------



## inva (Jul 17, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Wonder what has Britain ever done to anyone that would lead them to oppose it, in any way?


People joining IS weren't going out there to fight Britain.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 17, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Where did Newsthump use victims of rape gangs for satire, you hysterical twonk?
> 
> There's no moral equivalence needed, either a 15 year is too young to consent or they ain't. Where are you on this one?




You claimed it was satire. That’s why I put it in inverted commas.....

If you think there is some smart political point to be made by constructing some moral equivalence then crack on. Go for it...


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Wonder what has Britain ever done to anyone that would lead them to oppose it, in any way?


I wouldn't bother with this one if I were you.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Where did Newsthump use victims of rape gangs for satire, you hysterical twonk?



Here:

_“I’m not sure why sexually and psychologically abused British white girls are ‘victims’ but sexually and psychologically abused British girls of Bangladeshi descent somehow ‘are not’.

“…I mean the obvious conclusion would be that Simon is a bit of a racist, but I’d hate to be rude."_




Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's no moral equivalence needed, either a 15 year is too young to consent or they ain't. Where are you on this one?



Under English law, a 15 year old can't consent to sex, but they do have the capacity to commit crime.  There's nothing inconsistent about that.  And, the fact that the man who had sex with her at 15 would have been guilty of a crime if it had happened in the UK doesn't make her not guilty of any crimes she may have committed.


----------



## Serge Forward (Jul 17, 2020)

Detroit City said:


> she's a traitor and should be locked up





I'd hope we are all "traitors" to the nation state, to one degree or another. Begum's crimes are not to do with betraying the government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or any other), you nationalistic berk.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You claimed it was satire. That’s why I put it in inverted commas.....
> 
> If you think there is some smart political point to be made by constructing some moral equivalence then crack on. Go for it...



It's bollocks of course. Begum's Lawyers have claimed she was "groomed" and "trafficked" by IS, stretching the definitions of both terms to busting point and ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of kids with similar backgrounds and pressures _don't_ join ISIS, and that Begum bought her own plane ticket and became a member of the IS _morality police_ (by some accounts). 

As you've pointed out, trying to extract some moral equivalence with rape gangs is pretty fucking disgusting. Perhaps these people would be better off reserving their sympathy for the thousands of Yazidi women who were genuinely trafficked into sexual slavery by ISIS.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 17, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> It's bollocks of course. Begum's Lawyers have claimed she was "groomed" and "trafficked" by IS, stretching the definitions of both terms to busting point and ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of kids with similar backgrounds and pressures _don't_ join ISIS, and that Begum bought her own plane ticket and became a member of the IS _morality police_ (by some accounts).
> 
> As you've pointed out, trying to extract some moral equivalence with rape gangs is pretty fucking disgusting. Perhaps these people would be better off reserving their sympathy for the thousands of Yazidi women who were genuinely trafficked into sexual slavery by ISIS.



Bahnhofstrasse knows all of this. But is asserting that the ‘News Thump’ ‘satire’ contains an important political point that is being overlooked by sticking to the objective facts. The floor is open for him/her to set that case out


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 17, 2020)

inva said:


> People joining IS weren't going out there to fight Britain.



Indeed.

Got to wonder why anyone would be pushing the traitor angle.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> They were fighting/beheading/torturing _for_ a caliphate. A religious state. You seem to suggest some progressive anti-imperialist impulse at work?



Was being sarcastic to another poster who made the ridiculous claim of her being a "traitor". I believe that the one time narrative that Daesh was some kind of anti-imperialist outfit had long been put to bed...


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 17, 2020)

For the last few weeks we have all been lectured about how honouring and idolising slavers is history not hate and we shouldn't whitewash what has happened because its important to learn etc.  Now we have a real life actual slaver and some of the same voices are telling us we should just pretend she doesn't exist.  I mean, I'm not saying she should definitely have a statue but without one how will future generations learn?

Life in 2020 is confusing.


----------



## maomao (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> Under English law, a 15 year old can't consent to sex, but they do have the capacity to commit crime.  There's nothing inconsistent about that.  And, the fact that the man who had sex with her at 15 would have been guilty of a crime if it had happened in the UK doesn't make her not guilty of any crimes she may have committed.



My understanding is that teenage victims of grooming gangs in the UK are often used to assist in other crimes such as drug trafficking and procuring other teenage victims. Should I assume you believe they should be prosecuted for their crimes?


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> My understanding is that teenage victims of grooming gangs in the UK are often used to assist in other crimes such as drug trafficking and procuring other teenage victims. Should I assume you believe they should be prosecuted for their crimes?



Whether or not prosecution is in the public interest would depend on the circumstances.  Where a 15 year old had chosen to join and enthusiastically participate in an organisation that rapes, tortures and murders, I'd imagine that, whilst their culpability might be somewhat mitigated by their age and the fact that they were allegedly groomed, they ought not to get a free pass, particularly if there's some doubt about the genuineness of their repudiation (e.g. when it only came about after they were caught) and the level of ongoing threat they pose.

What do you think?


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 17, 2020)

Just going to put this out there:



It's a bloody long thread (over 250 tweets), but it's extraordinarily insightful.

The TL/DR - all this talk of mass murder, slavery, rape jihad, traitors, etc. is one side of ISIS's propaganda & recruitment strategy, there is another side. One side is designed to recruit enemies and increase the alienation of Muslims in western societies, the other side we don't see designed to capitalise on that alienation.


----------



## maomao (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> What do you think?


I fundamentally object to the removal of citizenship acquired at birth. I don't think the British state is obliged to bring her home but if she made it here on her own steam I think she probably belongs in somewhere like Broadmoor (the orchard?) for the moment. But I do think she was groomed.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> I fundamentally object to the removal of citizenship acquired at birth. I don't think the British state is obliged to bring her home but if she made it here on her own steam I think she probably belongs in somewhere like Broadmoor (the orchard?) for the moment. But I do think she was groomed.



You've answered a different question.  We were talking about the issue of whether those who claim to have been groomed should be prosecuted.  Do you think they should?  Do you think she should, if she makes it here?


----------



## maomao (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> You've answered a different question.  We were talking about the issue of whether those who claim to have been groomed should be prosecuted.  Do you think they should?  Do you think she should, if she makes it here?


In 99% of cases no. I'm thinking of some of the underage girls that were procurers for Epstein. They committed horrible crimes while over the age of criminal responsibility but they were victims.

I think she needs secure psychological intervention to protect the public from her while her state of mind can be assessed. It may be that she needs to be under lock and key permanently but I'd rather that decision was made by psychologists with experience in the area of grooming rather than the usual probation system. 

I also think the focus on this one particular case is a bit disturbing for obvious reasons.


----------



## LDC (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> I think she probably belongs in somewhere like Broadmoor (the orchard?) for the moment. But I do think she was groomed.



She belongs in a high security psychiatric unit? Why?

And thinking she was groomed, on what evidence?


----------



## maomao (Jul 17, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> She belongs in a high security psychiatric unit? Why?



Because I don't think the prison system is capable of dealing with complex cases like this



> And thinking she was groomed, on what evidence?



Leaving her family to travel to a warzone and marry a stranger after a long period of intense communication with Isis recruiters. If Isis recruiters aren't grooming what do you think they are doing? Explaining the facts and offering choices?


----------



## LDC (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> Leaving her family to travel to a warzone and marry a stranger after a long period of instense communication with Isis recruiters. If Isis recruiters aren't grooming what do you think they are doing? Explaining the facts and offering choices?



'Grooming' can mean a lot of things, so I'm not sure it's not that useful unless that's defined tbh, and it's a highly emotive term too.

I do have some sympathy with the possibility that she was vulnerable to that though, but I have no idea how much that was a factor in her case. She obviously had some level of agency and choice though, and yes, while the IS recruiters will present the idealized situation of where she was heading to, she also can't have been in any way ignorant of what was going on there. And some of her post capture interviews back that up, as do some of the reports of what she did when she was there. She didn't exactly spend the time cowering in the family home did she?

Do you think the age of criminal responsibility is wrong then, and it should be raised?

I've met a few male IS fighters, all of whom were as thick as two short planks, and probably by some definitions were a bit vulnerable, and were probably in the position there were in though a mix of factors including (for some) bad luck, ideological choices, religious belief, being recruited, being poor, etc. But Europeans had to put _a lot _of effort in to get to Syria back then, which in some ways proves they have more agency and choice than some villager in rural Iraq who ended up joining when IS took control of his area.


----------



## maomao (Jul 17, 2020)

I'm going to drop out of this conversation now because at 13:00 I have an interview for a PGCE course which will hopefully very soon have me training in East London secondary schools and in a position of care and responsibility for dozens of potential Shamima Begums among others.

It's not an easy case and the amount of public exposure she's had compared to other Isis fighters won't do much to help her.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jul 17, 2020)

good luck maomao


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm going to drop out of this conversation now because at 13:00 I have an interview for a PGCE course ...



Good luck


----------



## LDC (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm going to drop out of this conversation now because at 13:00 I have an interview for a PGCE course which will hopefully very soon have me training in East London secondary schools and in a position of care and responsibility for dozens of potential Shamima Begums among others.
> 
> It's not an easy case and the amount of public exposure she's had compared to other Isis fighters won't do much to help her.



Yeah hope it goes well.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> In 99% of cases no. I'm thinking of some of the underage girls that were procurers for Epstein. They committed horrible crimes while over the age of criminal responsibility but they were victims.
> 
> I think she needs secure psychological intervention to protect the public from her while her state of mind can be assessed. It may be that she needs to be under lock and key permanently but I'd rather that decision was made by psychologists with experience in the area of grooming rather than the usual probation system.
> 
> I also think the focus on this one particular case is a bit disturbing for obvious reasons.



I agree that prosecution wouldn't be appropriate in most cases.  But, for me, her case is exceptional; I believe that, if she ever comes to the UK, she should be prosecuted (albeit it should be possible for her then to raise the alleged grooming as a defence and/or mitigation).  You've still not answered the question, though.  Given it appears that she has committed a crime, do you think she should she be prosecuted is she comes back to the UK?  (Bearing in mind that the guff about her being detained by psychologists has zero chance of happening - there's just no appropriate legal mechanism.)


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 17, 2020)

This is starting to feel like a “gun thread”

I fear the same posters squealing string her up are also the types claiming the inside line on weapons know how

we certainly have some Middle East, cross border travel, ground truthers in our midst


----------



## 8ball (Jul 17, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> This is starting to feel like a “gun thread”
> 
> I fear the same posters squealing string her up also claim the inside line on weapons know how



I haven't once said string her up or anything like that, and I have the finest collection of guns, knives and uncategorised implements of death in the East Midlands.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 17, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> 'Grooming' can mean a lot of things, so I'm not sure it's not that useful unless that's defined tbh, and it's a highly emotive term too.
> 
> I do have some sympathy with the possibility that she was vulnerable to that though, but I have no idea how much that was a factor in her case. She obviously had some level of agency and choice though, and yes, while the IS recruiters will present the idealized situation of where she was heading to, she also can't have been in any way ignorant of what was going on there. And some of her post capture interviews back that up, as do some of the reports of what she did when she was there. She didn't exactly spend the time cowering in the family home did she?
> 
> ...



did you citizens arrest them


----------



## A380 (Jul 17, 2020)

Serious post.

Practically if she does make it back to the UK, which presumably could be achieved for not much money with a private team to get to the border and then to an airport in Turkey or Iran both of whom would be glad to stick her on a UK bound plane to avoid the issue. Once here the citizenship could be hoyed into the long grass. ( technical legal term) as I assume the CPS special cases team, or whatever they are called now,  could get several charges to stick resulting In a significant sentence. By the time  she had done that the arguments would be resolved and perhaps no one would care that much about it?


----------



## Teaboy (Jul 17, 2020)

A380 said:


> Serious post.
> 
> Practically if she does make it back to the UK, which presumably could be achieved for not much money with a private team to get to the border and then to an airport in Turkey or Iran both of whom would be glad to stick on a UK bound plane to avoid the issue. Once here the citizenship could be hoyed into the long grass. ( technical legal term) as I assume the CPS special cases team, or whatever they are called now,  could get several charges to stick resulting I’d a significant sentence. By the time  she had done that the arguments would be resolved and perhaps no one would care that much about it?



I'm by no means a legal expert but I don't think our laws around this sort of action are very good.  They were probably made at a time when going off to fight in foreign wars was a posh mercenary thing and the law makers weren't about to criminalise that.  

I think one of the problems here is that she will likely face very little in the way 'punishment' from UK courts.    Whether that is right or wrong, I'm staying out of.


----------



## A380 (Jul 17, 2020)

Less serious post. 

I saw an excellent frother trap on Facebook yesterday. Someone posted the picture below- which surprised me knowing them. Then replied to those that liked it or commented in support “I surprised you support Begum coming back to the UK...”

I’ve put it behind a spoiler, not because it’s violent or anything, just so some of the more irony resistant on here don’t get in a spin. 



Spoiler


----------



## LDC (Jul 17, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> did you citizens arrest them



"In the name of Urban75 I arrest you for crimes against humanity / detain you for some intense therapy and support." (Delete as appropriate.)

No, they were well and truly fucked already.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 17, 2020)

maomao said:


> In 99% of cases no. I'm thinking of some of the underage girls that were procurers for Epstein. They committed horrible crimes while over the age of criminal responsibility but they were victims.
> 
> I think she needs secure psychological intervention to protect the public from her while her state of mind can be assessed. It may be that she needs to be under lock and key permanently but I'd rather that decision was made by psychologists with experience in the area of grooming rather than the usual probation system.
> 
> I also think the focus on this one particular case is a bit disturbing for obvious reasons.



How will they go about protecting her from the public? I think there will be a lot of angry people... even if they don't attack her personally I could foresee attacks on property, family members etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> How will they go about protecting her from the public? I think there will be a lot of angry people... even if they don't attack her personally I could foresee attacks on property, family members etc.


people will have to work hard if they want to have a go at her dad.


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> people will have to work hard if they want to have a go at her dad.



Go on?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> Go on?


he doesn't live in the uk


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2020)

cyril_smear said:


> Go on?


He's in Bangladesh


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2020)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2020)

A380 said:


> Less serious post.
> 
> I saw an excellent frother trap on Facebook yesterday. Someone posted the picture below- which surprised me knowing them. Then replied to those that liked it or commented in support “I surprised you support Begum coming back to the UK...”
> 
> ...


there will be other deportations


Spoiler



postcards of the future #1


----------



## LDC (Jul 17, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> He's in Bangladesh



How much did you love being able to post that?!


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 17, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> How much did you love being able to post that?!


Served up on a plate with all the trimmings


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

A380 said:


> Serious post.
> 
> Practically if she does make it back to the UK, which presumably could be achieved for not much money with a private team to get to the border and then to an airport in Turkey or Iran both of whom would be glad to stick her on a UK bound plane to avoid the issue. Once here the citizenship could be hoyed into the long grass. ( technical legal term) as I assume the CPS special cases team, or whatever they are called now,  could get several charges to stick resulting In a significant sentence. By the time  she had done that the arguments would be resolved and perhaps no one would care that much about it?



If she gets back (and don't underestimate the logistical challenges of that, or the fact that there might still be an appeal by the Home Sec), undoubtedly she could be prosecuted. But, if found guilty (which is likely) the sentence would be relatively short (under five years).  In the meantime, the case against the Home Sec's decision would carry on.  If it decided that stripping her of her nationality was unlawful, she'd be released at the end of her sentence.  If it was lawful, then, after her sentence, she'd probably go to some sort of immigration detention, but, either way, she wouldn't be sent back to where she is now or to Bangladesh.  Ultimately' I suspect that she'd have to be released from that relatively quickly.

At any point she's released, she could be made subject to a TPIM, and probably covert surveillance.  But, knowing that, if she was determined and used a little sense, they'd not stop her committing terrorist acts in the UK.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 17, 2020)

19force8 said:


> Just going to put this out there:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 If you are indulging in acts of inhumanity mercy is often in short supply.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 17, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Its bollocks is what it is. Firstly, using the the victims of rape gangs for ‘satire’ is vile. Another example of how worthless their lives are, that they can be summoned up as satire to make a shit political point.
> 
> Secondly, the aim: a blatant attempt to draw some sort of moral equivalence. To absolve Begum of any kind of personal responsibility and to suggest everything is just completely determined by external conditions is just garbage. The attempt to portray those who question that piss poor logic as racist thickos isn’t worthy of debate



Racism can be subtle, as can sexism, I think the way that 'race' and gender and class shape how adult (responsible for their actions, a threat) a child or young person is seen has been well observed. I do think it's something we need to be aware of. 

I thought about Begum the other day when I was listening to the radio on the way to work, there was a programme about gangs and grooming and the ex-gang member said ( I think) what gets missed is the desire of the groomed young person for a solution, they're actively seeking something. It's the relationship between the person seeking something and the people who appear to be offering a solution to that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> Racism can be subtle, as can sexism, I think the way that 'race' and gender and class shape how adult (responsible for their actions, a threat) a child or young person is seen has been well observed. I do think it's something we need to be aware of.
> 
> I thought about Begum the other day when I was listening to the radio on the way to work, there was a programme about gangs and grooming and the ex-gang member said ( I think) what gets missed is the desire of the groomed young person for a solution, they're actively seeking something. It's the relationship between the person seeking something and the people who appear to be offering a solution to that.


This is spot on but what sticks in the craw is the response some people have had to this case versus say 15 year old loyalist in rathcoole.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> ... what sticks in the craw is the response some people have had to this case versus say 15 year old loyalist in rathcoole.



How so?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> How so?


Grooming.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Grooming.



What distinction has been made, and by whom, though?


----------



## seeformiles (Jul 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> This is spot on but what sticks in the craw is the response some people have had to this case versus say 15 year old loyalist in rathcoole.



I spent a lot of time in Rathcoole in my yoof (& had an occasional job posting flyers round the same for “Spiders’ Nightclub”). Surprised to hear it mentioned on this thread and a blast from the past 🙂


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> What distinction has been made, and by whom, though?


They haven't made the distinction _public _- that's not how it works. How it works  is this equals fully groomed girl, the nationalists who killed Lyra McKee = semi-groomed, those loyalist kids = fully not groomed and responsible for each and very action. Which is why grooming as regards political stuff is a dead end - because it will never be applied universally - yours are always fighters, their's are always groomed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 17, 2020)

seeformiles said:


> I spent a lot of time in Rathcoole in my yoof (& had an occasional job posting flyers round the same for “Spiders’ Nightclub”). Surprised to hear it mentioned on this thread and a blast from the past 🙂


Disco grooming.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> They haven't made the distinction _public _- that's not how it works. How it works  is this equals fully groomed girl, the nationalists who killed Lyra McKee = semi-groomed, those loyalist kids = fully not groomed and responsible for each and very action. Which is why grooming as regards political stuff is a dead end - because it will never be applied universally - yours are always fighters, their's are always groomed.



I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree that grooming isn't a useful way of understating some aspects of this, if applied properly.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree that grooming isn't a useful way of understating some aspects of this, if applied properly.



How do you think it can be applied properly?


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> How do you think it can be applied properly?



I think for starters you'dneed to be aware of the possibility for bias that butchersapron mentioned.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> I think for starters you'dneed to be aware of the possibility for bias that butchersapron mentioned.



I think his point is that it is probable rather than possible.


----------



## seeformiles (Jul 17, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Disco grooming.



A free drink with each flyer! 😎


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I think his point is that it is probable rather than possible.



Yes, you're right.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 17, 2020)

Denying people citizenship based on criminality is well dodgy. There are people assured of citizenship who have performed far more heinous acts. People oppose the British state when they lob a half brick at a policeman. 

This debate has a nasty, racist edge to it.  The underlying thrust is that she doesn't deserve the privileges of Britishness in the same way that other people who conspire killing, or plot against the state do. I don't buy it.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> Denying people citizenship based on criminality is well dodgy. There are people assured of citizenship who have performed far more heinous acts. People oppose the British state when they lob a half brick at a policeman.
> 
> This debate has a nasty, racist edge to it.  The underlying thrust is that she doesn't deserve the privileges of Britishness in the same way that other people who conspire killing, or plot against the state do. I don't buy it.



It's not even criminality; the provision under which Javid stripped her of her British citizenship doesn't require a conviction, merely that citizenship is not conducive to the public good.

No doubt, the government's argument would be that they'd like to strip sole British nationals of it too where they represent a similar threat, but that international law prevents them from doing so!  But it does create a two tier system of citizenship, albeit one which could be legally justified - notwithstanding it's a _prima facie_ breach of article 14 ECHR - on national security grounds.

I think most people could conceive of extreme circumstances where that could be justified.  But the fear is Home Secs using it willy-nilly, and to posture.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 17, 2020)

also they stripped her of British citizenship as a point of brinkmanship with  the international community


will work about as well as Brexit

if it was not for the pesky liberals or remainers


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 17, 2020)

. 

_(reiterated earlier point basically, but with less rhyme and reason)_


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> It's crap though. There are plenty of people who it would 'be better' for everybody if they weren't British (everybody in this country at least!). It seems we only consider un-Britishing someone in this manner when they've got a 'whiff of foreign' about them.



That's the only people to whom they can do it under international law.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> Denying people citizenship based on criminality is well dodgy. There are people assured of citizenship who have performed far more heinous acts. People oppose the British state when they lob a half brick at a policeman.
> 
> This debate has a nasty, racist edge to it.  The underlying thrust is that she doesn't deserve the privileges of Britishness in the same way that other people who conspire killing, or plot against the state do. I don't buy it.


This particular case stinks of racism. And to see people on here cheering it on is really depressing.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This particular case stinks of racism. And to see people on here cheering it on is really depressing.



I'm not cheering it on; whilst I'd not care less if she lives out the rest of her life in the camp (or, indeed, if she's executed there), I do think we ought to challenge the state's use of such powers.  But this does raise a really interesting question.  Do you think there could ever be a situation in which discriminatory treatment would be justified on national security grounds?


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 17, 2020)

at what point don't you still classify as a British citizen

just wondering


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> I'm not cheering it on; whilst I'd not care less if she lives out the rest of her life in the camp (or, indeed, if she's executed there), I do think we ought to challenge the state's use of such powers.  But this does raise a really interesting question.  Do you think there could ever be a situation in which discriminatory treatment could be justified on national security grounds?


No. You find another way.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No. You find another way.



That seems a bit naive, and unrealistic.  If, for example, you had gold-plated intelligence that a French person was travelling to the UK to plant a dirty bomb in London that would kill millions, I think most people would think a temporary travel on ban on the French could be a proportionate response in pursuance of a legitimate aim.  What would the alternative be? Let the bomber come?  Ban all travel?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> That seems a bit naive, and unrealistic.  If, for example, you had gold-plated intelligence that a French person was travelling to the UK to plant a dirty bomb in London that would kill millions, I think most people would think a temporary travel on ban on the French could be a proportionate response in pursuance of a legitimate aim.  What would the alternative be? Let the bomber come?  Ban all travel?


That's not an equivalent situation. This is discrimination of a totally different kind. That's not even discrimination, really, of the racist kind I'm talking about. It's not much different from banning people from certain countries from entering a country during the pandemic.

It is not naive to think that a state can and should operate in a non-racist way. To demand it, in fact. It is naive to think that to do otherwise and to discriminate by race in this kind of way, either directly or indirectly, is not immensely damaging in a deep and long-lasting way.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not an equivalent situation. This is discrimination of a totally different kind. That's not even discrimination, really, of the racist kind I'm talking about. It's not much different from banning people from certain countries from entering a country during the pandemic.



How is treating people differently based upon their nationality discrimination of a different kind/not discrimination?


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is not naive to think that a state can and should operate in a non-racist way.



It is; states are racist by definition.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> It is; states are racist by definition.



That's OK then.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's OK then.



Don't be stupid, Frank.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> Don't be stupid, Frank.



Don't make manifestly dreadful arguments to justify racist policies.


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Don't make manifestly dreadful arguments to justify racist policies.



What racist policy have I sought to justify, and where?


----------



## cyril_smear (Jul 17, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> he doesn't live in the uk



I'm a soppy cunt


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2020)

Athos said:


> How is treating people differently based upon their nationality discrimination of a different kind/not discrimination?


You can't see how? Really?


----------



## Athos (Jul 17, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You can't see how? Really?



Really.  Can you say how?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 17, 2020)

<taps watch>


----------



## scifisam (Jul 17, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's no moral equivalence needed, either a 15 year is too young to consent or they ain't. Where are you on this one?



As a former 15-year-old girl, I'd say the line is not actually that strict. Lots of 15-year-olds have consensual sex with boys/young men a little older than them. They are not children being abused by other children. They are teenagers who want to have sex, and lots of teenagers do it with other teenagers. 15-year-olds do not generally like being treated like they're children who could not possibly have any sexual desires. 

Drawing that hard line, IMO, makes it more difficult for young girls to judge what is wrong. Some countries have romeo and juliet laws - basically, an 18-year-old and a 15-year-old is fine, depending on the law, but 30 and 15, no. R&J laws highlight the fact that it's not just your age that is the issue, but your partner's age - the imbalance which can lead to grooming and abusive relationships rather than teenage love and experimentation. 



Spymaster said:


> It's bollocks of course. Begum's Lawyers have claimed she was "groomed" and "trafficked" by IS, stretching the definitions of both terms to busting point and ignoring the fact that tens of thousands of kids with similar backgrounds and pressures _don't_ join ISIS, and that Begum bought her own plane ticket and became a member of the IS _morality police_ (by some accounts).
> 
> As you've pointed out, trying to extract some moral equivalence with rape gangs is pretty fucking disgusting. Perhaps these people would be better off reserving their sympathy for the thousands of Yazidi women who were genuinely trafficked into sexual slavery by ISIS.



My daughter's best friends went to school with Begum. 

She was groomed. I'm really not sure how being persuaded to join a cult and marry some bloke she didn't know at the age of 15 could not be called grooming. 

Trafficked is different - she wasn't kidnapped and sent abroad against her will. It's not necessary to say she was trafficked to concede that she was groomed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 17, 2020)

I'm reminded in this case of a quote from the head psychiatrist at Broadmoor. She said that while, of course, thousands of people have abusive childhoods without ending up in Broadmoor, nobody ends up in Broadmoor without first going through an abusive childhood. 

It's not excusing Begum to say that her circumstances were a prerequisite for her to be recruited, any more than it excuses the murderers in Broadmoor to say that they wouldn't be there if their parents hadn't abused them. Both still have to take responsibility for what they did. Both can and need to be seen in their wider context to have a hope of understanding how such terrible things happen. And there is understanding to be had here.


----------



## mx wcfc (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> She was groomed. I'm really not sure how being persuaded to join a cult and marry some bloke she didn't know at the age of 15 could not be called grooming.
> 
> Trafficked is different - she wasn't kidnapped and sent abroad against her will. It's not necessary to say she was trafficked to concede that she was groomed.


This is very much the view I have come to.  I may have taken a different view at times before, but this country has to take responsibility for her, what has happened to her, and her future.  Clearly she should be brought back here - equally clearly, if she does, she is going to do time - that is unavoidable. The fact that this country let her child die in a camp is to this country's shame.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

Them crimes in Syria? Those Syrians? Nah British justice is more important than that and them. Fuck that lot.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

The empire lives on - in your heart.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Them crimes in Syria? Those Syrians? Nah British justice is more important than that and them. Fuck that lot.



Quite. How many of those calling for her to brought back were insisting Gary Glitter should be tried here?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

I keep wondering, at what point are Syrians going to make an entrance on all these posts?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 18, 2020)

Shamima Begum's current situation is doing the Syrian people no end of good of course.

Due process is gonna kick in any day now, at which point this big boss villain can finally be held accountable and Syria's wounds can finally be healed.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

Good of you to decide for them curly. Empire writ in bone and blood.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Good of you to decide for them curly. Empire writ in bone and blood.



Just you that gets to act as spokesman for them then. Seems fair.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just you that gets to act as spokesman for them then. Seems fair.


I haven't spoke for anyone beyond myself - pointing out that all empire-liberals like you can see is the empire, and demanding it's writ extend far and wide, victims be damned.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

Phew, that mafeking was a close one eh? Still british laws, none of that fuzzy wuzzy stuff.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Them crimes in Syria? Those Syrians? Nah British justice is more important than that and them. Fuck that lot.


What lot?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> What lot?


Any syrians who might seek to have a voice in this. Or even those who don't. Mesasge is loud and clear - all about the empire and it's rules.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> What lot?



Given the interest in victims of trafficking and grooming on this thread how about the Yazidis? Not one post I’ve seen has expressed concern or demands for justice.

Then there are the allegations that Begum was an active member of the "morality police", and also tried to recruit/groom other young women to join.

it’s unlikely that she could be tried over those  alleged activities here.

So that lot for starters.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> That's the only people to whom they can do it under international law.


For me it's not a question of whether they can do it, but rather whether they _should _do it.  This goes right to the roots of the notion of 'Britishness' being a preserve.  I had my British-ness randomly questioned multiple times growing up.  I know how fragile of a facility it can be.  

As tempting as it might be, we can't just jettison people because we don't like what they stand for, or what they've done.  The notion of 'accidental' (dual) nationality is both cruel and ridiculous.   

This government is very eager to cancel the Britishness of even long-established citizens - destroy their records, create a climate of hostility, etc., and based on what?  Not any sense of fairness or proportion, but on the lasting idea that people of colour don't have a bona fide tenure.  If you take a look at how race and citizenship interact through the actions of this government, you'll see that this issue has a significant racist dimension.


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given the interest in victims of trafficking and grooming on this thread how about the Yazidis? Not one post I’ve seen has expressed concern or demands for justice.
> 
> Then there are the allegations that Begum was an active member of the "morality police", and also tried to recruit/groom other young women to join.
> 
> ...


I was wondering if Butcher's lot refered to anyone in particular making those demands for justice or even willing and able to pursue it rather than hypothetical Syrians or Yazidis


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> This government is very eager to cancel the Britishness of even long-established citizens - destroy their records, create a climate of hostility, etc., and based on what?


In this case, her 5 year membership of an outfit that raped and murdered their way across Iraq and Syria.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> I was wondering if Butcher's lot refered to anyone in particular making those demands for justice or even willing and able to pursue it rather than hypothetical Syrians or Yazidis


Plenty of local courts across NE  Syria ready to try ISIS in the areas where the crimes are alleged to have taken place  - it's one of the victories of the revolution. There's even a state still going just round the corner. Not even got a mention though because of those reverse-imperial goggles. (Not you)


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> For me it's not a question of whether they can do it, but rather whether they _should _do it.  This goes right to the roots of the notion of 'Britishness' being a preserve.  I had my British-ness randomly questioned multiple times growing up.  I know how fragile of a facility it can be.
> 
> As tempting as it might be, we can't just jettison people because we don't like what they stand for, or what they've done.  The notion of 'accidental' (dual) nationality is both cruel and ridiculous.
> 
> This government is very eager to cancel the Britishness of even long-established citizens - destroy their records, create a climate of hostility, etc., and based on what?  Not any sense of fairness or proportion, but on the lasting idea that people of colour don't have a bona fide tenure.  If you take a look at how race and citizenship interact through the actions of this government, you'll see that this issue has a significant racist dimension.


Britishness vs actual murder and rape across syria and iraq. How quaint.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> In this case, her 5 year membership of an outfit that raped and murdered their way across Iraq and Syria.


I've been trying to relate - as a society we have rapists and murders, unfortunately.  It's part of what a society itself is set up to deal with.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Britishness vs actual murder and rape across syria and iraq. How quaint.


See above.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> I've been trying to relate - as a society we have rapists and murders, unfortunately.  It's part of what a society itself is set up to deal with.


And when they rape and murder here we deal with them here. Would you be happier if the UKG did what France do and hand her over to Iraq for them to deal with?


----------



## 19force8 (Jul 18, 2020)

Did I miss something here?

Has someone been arguing that because she's British she (and no doubt others) shouldn't be held to account for their actions?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

19force8 said:


> Did I miss something here?
> 
> Has someone been arguing that because she's British she (and no doubt others) shouldn't be held to account for their actions?


No. But loads of twonks have argued that she should be brought back to the UK and tried here.


----------



## LDC (Jul 18, 2020)

And being tried here (if she even does tbh) would mean she probably won't be held to account for whatever she did over there.


----------



## xenon (Jul 18, 2020)

What's the problem with saying, OK, she's British then. But given you're over there,e have committed crimes over there, there you shall stay to face justice. If somehow you make it back here, UK local law applies.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> And when they rape and murder here we deal with them here. Would you be happier if the UKG did what France do and hand her over to Iraq for them to deal with?


I'm commentating on the relative immutability of citizenship itself, not how criminal acts should be tried.  UK citizens are tried abroad under foreign law all the time.  Similarly, in limited cases, a Brit can be prosecuted in the Uk for a crime carried out elsewhere.  None of that is my point, and I don't actually know whether, for instance Begum should be subject to further prosecution.  I just know that she should still be considered British if and where such action takes place.


----------



## xenon (Jul 18, 2020)

Ah, timing.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And being tried here (if she even does tbh) would mean she probably won't be held to account for whatever she did over there.


The quiet-imperialism of the well-meaning isn't it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> I'm commentating on the relative immutability of citizenship itself ...



LBJ's 'two-tier racist system'. Load of old bollocks. Are you able to show a single example of a Home Secretary using this power to strip a citizen not involved in terrorism?


----------



## CNT36 (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> The longer this goes on without a clear outcome the more likely i think the hand over to assad option becomes - it clears up many problems and may offer a number of advantages to the main players here. First off, it's not 'the kurds' who have her, it's the SDF - a politico-military formulation that the US imposed on the turkish syrian PKK in order to receive much wider military support and supply than they had been receiving around the time of kobani as the YPG. It isn't a fully kurdish grouping and it isn't supported by all kurds - in fact it has been used to silence politically dissenting kurdish groups and individuals.
> 
> The PKK/SDF is right now in talks with assad about integrating with the Syrian military in order to retain some from of regional autonomy in the north east they currently control after assad bombs the remaining anti-regime forces and civilians to pieces in idlib. Assad has played the foreign angle very well throughout this war. The former handing her over to the latter will help both. The pkk can say that they are taking seriously their role in the assadist reconstruction of the country and helping to punish those who brought such devastation etc. The latter is, i think, unlikely to disappear her into the rape/torture/murder cells as he has to 20 000+ opponents of his regime during the revolution (helped along by ISIS, helped in turn by his security forces). He's much more likely to make her a symbol of magnanimous forgiveness and western hypocrisy in the international spotlight. Of course, he might well have her raped/tortured/disappeared but that's never been the main concern of the PKK. Either way, i think both would perceive that outcome as satisfactory - as might the UK. I was joking when i suggested this last week and was using her to highlight the much larger question of the still ongoing conflict and ISIS' role in it. No longer so sure.


I was just thinking about the Assad option, searched the thread and found this. How likely do you think this is? Why haven't they pushed her onto Assad, the revolution or someone else already just to get rid? Still even now playing both sides?


----------



## xenon (Jul 18, 2020)

I can't remember now but. Apart from the grandstanding opportunity withdrawing British citizenship presented Javid, is there any reason why had this not been done, she still couldn't be left there. i.e. was it necessary to do this to fend off legal challenges based around the fact she had a British child at the time which would put a responsibility on the UK to repatriate them?

May have answered my own question there.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> I was just thinking about the Assad option, searched the thread and found this. How likely do you think this is? Why haven't they pushed her onto Assad, the revolution or someone else already just to get rid? Still even now playing both sides?


I think the chances have reduced significantly since i posted that, and i think the chances of being handed over to any local court have dissapeared. She's lucky in a sense that she's now in the liberal eye - she'll not have happen to her what's happened to so many others - often as a direct result of the actions she chose to materially support. I don't see any outcome other than being given passage to the UK now. I was just v angry above that, yet again, syrians disappeared in the debate, even pathetically symbolically.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2020)

19force8 said:


> Did I miss something here?
> 
> Has someone been arguing that because she's British she (and no doubt others) shouldn't be held to account for their actions?



Not exactly. But a British court can’t easily try her for alleged crimes - morality police membership and activity, grooming others - in Syria.

Plus once she’s back here there is a vanishingly small chance of her being extradited back to Syria to account for her alleged role in actions inflicted on citizens.

Have a look through the thread and see the balance applied by posters to her alleged actions and the victims (working class Syrians) v her rights


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2020)

CNT36 said:


> I was just thinking about the Assad option, searched the thread and found this. How likely do you think this is? Why haven't they pushed her onto Assad, the revolution or someone else already just to get rid? Still even now playing both sides?



Isn’t that what France did? Might be wrong


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

I think that it would have been better if she had never gone in the first place to be completely honest


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> I think that it would have been better if she had never gone in the first place to be completely honest



No shit, Dave.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

alsoknownas said:


> This government is very eager to cancel the Britishness of even long-established citizens - destroy their records, create a climate of hostility, etc., and based on what?  Not any sense of fairness or proportion, but on the lasting idea that people of colour don't have a bona fide tenure.



No, not based on the fact that she's a person of colour; based on the fact that she joined a brutal organisation that murders, rapes, and enslaves, and subscribes to an ideology that is a threat to British people of all colours and religions.  You might notice that the government doesn't do this to people of colour who are dual nationals who aren't thought to be involved in terrorism, and that it does do it to white people who are e.g. Jack Letts.  I've no doubt the government and all our institutions are racist, but the idea that her being stripped of her British citizenship is evidence of racism, or that the policy is racist _per se_ (any more than any policy based on nationality) is absurd.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> I think that it would have been better if she had never gone in the first place to be completely honest


Think about all the fun Spymaster  has had on this thread. And how none of that would have happened if she hadn't gone.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, not based on the fact that she's a person of colour; based on the fact that she joined a brutal organisation that murders, rapes, and enslaves, and subscribes to an ideology that is a threat to British people of all colours and religions.  You might notice that the government doesn't do this to people of colour who are dual nationals who aren't thought to be involved in terrorism, and that it does do it to white people who are e.g. Jack Letts.  I've no doubt the government and all our institutions are racist, but the idea that her being stripped of her British citizenship is evidence of racism, or that the policy is racist _per se_ (any more than any policy based on nationality) is absurd.


Sally Jones - they pretty much put her on a kill list. And she got killed.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Isn’t that what France did? Might be wrong


France sent them to Iraq.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Sally Jones - they pretty much put her on a kill list. And she got killed.



Quite.  It's just whiny liberal bullshit.  There's plenty of reasons to object to the state being able to do this, but the idea that it's any more racist than the idea of nationality upon which states are based, or that British people deserve British justice (and fuck justice by and and for those they've wronged) are two of the poorest.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Quite.  It's just whiny liberal bullshit.  There's plenty of reasons to object to the state being able to do this, but the idea that it's any more racist than the idea of nationality upon which states are based, or that British people deserve British justice (and fuck justice by and and for those they've wronged) are two of the poorest.


I'm not sure people resident in the UK deserve British justice which may be legally correct but is so rarely just.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not sure people resident in the UK deserve British justice which may be legal but is so rarely just.



The irony being that the same people claiming HMG has acted in a racist way on this issue are those doubting the ability of other jurisdictions to deliver justice.


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> I think the chances have reduced significantly since i posted that, and i think the chances of being handed over to any local court have dissapeared. She's lucky in a sense that she's now in the liberal eye - she'll not have happen to her what's happened to so many others - often as a direct result of the actions she chose to materially support. I don't see any outcome other than being given passage to the UK now. I was just v angry above that, yet again, syrians disappeared in the debate, even pathetically symbolically.



Thanks for bringing people back into sight.

You did this also with Bristol this week.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, not based on the fact that she's a person of colour; based on the fact that she joined a brutal organisation that murders, rapes, and enslaves, and subscribes to an ideology that is a threat to British people of all colours and religions.  You might notice that the government doesn't do this to people of colour who are dual nationals who aren't thought to be involved in terrorism, and that it does do it to white people who are e.g. Jack Letts.  I've no doubt the government and all our institutions are racist, but the idea that her being stripped of her British citizenship is evidence of racism, or that the policy is racist _per se_ (any more than any policy based on nationality) is absurd.



It is a bit dodgy to me how they used the fact that her family is from Bangladesh and tried to get Bangladesh to take responsibility for her. Racism is maybe not the right term, but it does feel like her citizenship was compromised because of her background, which is a bit off


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> It is a bit dodgy to me how they used the fact that her family is from Bangladesh and tried to get Bangladesh to take responsibility for her.


They didn't try to get Bangladesh to take responsibility for her, they just abrogated their own. Rightly so.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, not based on the fact that she's a person of colour; based on the fact that she joined a brutal organisation that murders, rapes, and enslaves, and subscribes to an ideology that is a threat to British people of all colours and religions.  You might notice that the government doesn't do this to people of colour who are dual nationals who aren't thought to be involved in terrorism, and that it does do it to white people who are e.g. Jack Letts.  I've no doubt the government and all our institutions are racist, but the idea that her being stripped of her British citizenship is evidence of racism, or that the policy is racist _per se_ (any more than any policy based on nationality) is absurd.


Her nationality is British. It is racist to discriminate against her on the basis of her ethnicity - ie the origin of her ancestors - and in so doing to create different classes of citizenship based purely on ethnicity. How is this so hard to understand?

You can bet your arse that islamists seeking to recruit more Begums will understand this point well enough.
_See, to them you are not British. They will never accept you as British. _


----------



## xenon (Jul 18, 2020)

How come no one's making these arguments against removal of British citizenship about the likes of Alex Koty?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her nationality is British. It is racist to discriminate against her on the basis of her ethnicity - ie the origin of her ancestors - and in so doing to create different classes of citizenship based purely on ethnicity. How is this so hard to understand?


They are not doing that. Your argument might hold water if you could point to examples of anyone of another ethnicity in the same position being treated differently, but you can't.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> They didn't try to get Bangladesh to take responsibility for her, they just abrogated their own. Rightly so.



I thought that because she was eligible for Bangladesh citizenship was a part of the legal case to strip her of UK citizenship?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> I thought that because she was eligible for Bangladesh citizenship was a part of the legal case to strip her of UK citizenship?


That's correct but nobody has asked anything of Bangladesh. HMG have just told her to fuck off.


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

xenon said:


> How come no one's making these arguments against removal of British citizenship about the likes of Alex Koty?


Teenage girls make better hate figures for some reason. Which is why there's no thread about Koty (who is he?).


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Jul 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her nationality is British. It is racist to discriminate against her on the basis of her ethnicity - ie the origin of her ancestors - and in so doing to create different classes of citizenship based purely on ethnicity. How is this so hard to understand?



It’s really not that it’s hard to understand. It’s that people, me included, think you are wrong. If you want to stand this claim up - that race is the decisive factor here - you are going to need to evidence your claim.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> Teenage girls make better hate figures for some reason.


Yeah. That's_ exactly_ what this is all about.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Her nationality is British. It is racist to discriminate against her on the basis of her ethnicity - ie the origin of her ancestors - and in so doing to create different classes of citizenship based purely on ethnicity. How is this so hard to understand?



The differential treatment is not based her background or ethnicity; it's her legal nationality. There are lots of terrorists with the same background and ethnicity who've not had their British nationality stripped because they don't have a second legal nationality.  And examples of people with different backgrounds and ethnicity who have been treated the same as her. Your claim simply doesn't stand scrutiny.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> That's correct but nobody has asked anything of Bangladesh. HMG has just told her to fuck off.



But it should not matter. She is a British citizen (a British child when she joined ISIS) so she should be treated the same as someone with no family connection to anywhere by British law

edit: I think. That seems like equality to me, seems a bit unfair that her family being Bangladeshi is a part of how she is treated


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

I disagree


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> But it should not matter. She is a British citizen (a British child when she joined ISIS) so she should be treated the same as someone with no family connection to anywhere by British law


The point is she's not a British citizen.


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah. That's_ exactly_ what this is all about.


Not all. About 90%.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I disagree



well, you're wrong


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> well, you're wrong


Nope. You are.

No returns.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> The point is she's not a British citizen.


Says who, and on what basis do they say it? That's the whole issue of contention, not 'the point'.

You and spymaster make for useful idiots to power, you really do.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Says who, and on what basis do they say it? That's the whole issue of contention, not 'the point'.



As things stand, the law - which is what defines citizenship - says she's not, on the basis of the Home Sec's decision. (Though, I accept that position might be reversed if she wins her appeal.)


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Nope. You are.
> 
> No returns.



you win this time


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

glad we sorted that out. what's next?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> glad we sorted that out. what's next?


Israel and Palestine?


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Israel and Palestine?



Both rubbish, next?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> Both rubbish, next?


Brexit?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You and spymaster make for useful idiots to power, you really do.



Why?  I've made it clear I don't support the decision.  The only difference between you and me is that I understand the legal aspects.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Brexit?



Just tell them we were joking


edit: I've been guilty of disrupting this discussion trying to be funny for which i apologise


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> Just tell them we were joking


The TERF wars?


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> The TERF wars?



This is actually quite an interesting discussion so I don't want to contribute to disrupting it with crap jokes anymore. I am interested in what I was disagreeing with Spymaster over and some of the other threads running through the discussion

And plus, trans issues is an IED for middle aged people like me lol. Not falling for that one


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Why?  I've made it clear I don't support the decision.  The only difference between you and me is that I understand the legal technicalities.



So as someone who understands the law, do you not think that it's a bit dodgy that her family history counts against her case for citizenship?

I don't know the law, but instinctively that feels wrong to me. The law is meant to be indiscriminate and if I brought some catastrophe on myself at 15 I wouldn't expect my citizenship to save me, but if my family history was used against me I would find that unfair since it was not my mistake to have parents from a poor country


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> So as someone who understands the law, do you not think that it's a bit dodgy that her family history counts against her case for citizenship?
> 
> I don't know the law, but instinctively that feels wrong to me. The law is meant to be indiscriminate and if I brought some catastrophe on myself at 15 I wouldn't expect my citizenship to save me, but if my family history was used against me I would find that unfair since it was not my mistake to have parents from a poor country



Everyone's nationality is imposed on them by law, by virtue of the accident of parentage or geography.  Typically, that confers a mixture of advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> LBJ's 'two-tier racist system'. Load of old bollocks. Are you able to show a single example of a Home Secretary using this power to strip a citizen not involved in terrorism?


It would be a bit weird if I was able to, considering I am arguing that they do not often do so.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Everyone's nationality is imposed on them by law, by virtue of the accident of parentage or geography.  Typically, that confers a mixture of advantages and disadvantages.



this is why I could never learn law, that is meaningless. everything happens because of circumstance and free will doesn't exist, is it even so bad if Syria execute her since death is inevitable

She is not a citizen of anywhere except the UK, it shouldn't matter what she is eligible for. Technically every citizen of the UK is eligible for citizenship in pretty much every country.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> She is not a citizen of anywhere except the UK, it shouldn't matter what she is eligible for. Technically every citizen of the UK is eligible for citizenship in pretty much every country.


No, that's wrong. She is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth (rather than merely being eligible for citizenship).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> LBJ's 'two-tier racist system'. Load of old bollocks. Are you able to show a single example of a Home Secretary using this power to strip a citizen not involved in terrorism?


This comment shows precisely why you're a useful idiot to power. You're happy to see the state exercise arbitrary power towards particular people if you like the outcome of that use of arbitrary power. Not so different from the way people cheered when the state murdered people it said were IRA terrorists in the 80s.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, that's wrong. She is a Bangladeshi citizen by birth (rather than merely being eligible for citizenship).



Oh, I didn't know that I thought that she was born in England. So my immediate reaction to that is that she is kind of fucked then

My second reaction is just sadness because she did that to herself on purpose.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> Oh, I didn't know that I thought that she was born in England. So my immediate reaction to that is that she is kind of fucked then
> 
> My second reaction is just sadness because she did that to herself on purpose.



She was born in England.  But she's a dual national with Bangladeshi citizenship, under Bangladeshi law.


----------



## xenon (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> Teenage girls make better hate figures for some reason. Which is why there's no thread about Koty (who is he?).



I mean, how come no one is saying this guy shouldn't have had his British nationality removed. Cos he's a bloke? Cos he was more directly involved in violence?




__





						Alexanda Kotey - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## xenon (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> Oh, I didn't know that I thought that she was born in England. So my immediate reaction to that is that she is kind of fucked then
> 
> My second reaction is just sadness because she did that to herself on purpose.



This has been covered like 50 times already. She is / was British because she was born in the UK. She has Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents being born there. Something Bangladeshi law confers upon children of Bangladeshi parents automatically up to the age of 21. Though I gather they dispute this. But this is the basis her British citizenship was removed but not leaving her stateless as would be against international law.

Not sure what exactly the situation with Kotey is. Says in the wiki article he is defacto stateless now.


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

xenon said:


> I mean, how come no one is saying this guy shouldn't have had his British nationality removed. Cos he's a bloke? Cos he was more directly involved in violence?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think he should have his nationality removed. I just don't get the chance to say that a lot because people only want to have threads about evil Isis brides.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

xenon said:


> This has been covered like 50 times already. She is / was British because she was born in the UK. She has Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents being born there. Something Bangladeshi law confers upon children of Bangladeshi parents automatically up to the age of 21. Though I gather they dispute this. But this is the basis her British citizenship was removed but not leaving her stateless as would be against international law.
> 
> Not sure what exactly the situation with Kotey is. Says in the wiki article he is defacto stateless now.



I'm sorry, I don't follow it very closely. I may stop posting on this thread in case I affect her appeal


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> I don't think he should have his nationality removed. I just don't get the chance to say that a lot because people only want to have threads about evil Isis brides.


You could always start one about the unfairness of stripping the citizenship of the poor, hard done by murderer.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> I'm sorry, I don't follow it very closely. I may stop posting on this thread in case I affect her appeal


Aye, just in case you post something that hasn’t been noted in the previous 126 pages!


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

There's plenty of reasons to object to the state's actions, here.  But I find it bizarre that people think the UK public should have to bear the risk of her return because of an accident of birth (her British nationality), but that it's objectionable that she should bear the risk of another accident of birth (her Bangladeshi citizenship), when that risk wouldn't have arisen but for her choice to join a gang of murdering, rapist slavers!


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> There's plenty of reasons to object to the state's actions, here.  But I find it bizarre that people think the UK public should have to bear the risk of her return because of an accident of birth (her British nationality), but that it's objectionable that she should bear the risk of another accident of birth (her Bangladeshi citizenship), when that risk wouldn't have arisen but for her choice to join a gang of murdering, rapist slavers!



So you think that a person (not Begum, who I've already said on this thread should be dealt with by local law) who has Bangladeshi parents but has never left the UK is equally Bangladeshi and British? That nationality is just a legal fact?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> So you think that a person (not Begum, who I've already said on this thread should be dealt with by local law) who has Bangladeshi parents but has never left the UK is equally Bangladeshi and British? That nationality is just a legal fact?



Nationality is a binary legal status. You are a national or your not.  So, insofar as someone is a citizen of each of them (according to the law), then, yes, I think they're as British as they are Bangladeshi.  (That's me saying what it is, rather than my thoughts on whether the essentially discriminatory concept of nationality should be 'a thing', btw.)


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Nationality is a binary legal status. You are a national or your not.  So, insofar as someone is a citizen of each of them (according to the law), then, yes, I think they're as British as they are Bangladeshi.  (That's me saying what it is, rather than my thoughts on whether the essentially discriminatory concept of nationality should be 'a thing', btw.)


I'm asking your opinion as a human. If I wanted a cheap and unreliable legal opinion I still have four days of my JustAnswer trial left. The position you consistently take is your expressed opinion.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm asking your opinion as a human. If I wanted a cheap and unreliable legal opinion I still have four days of my JustAnswer trial left. The position you consistently take is your expressed opinion.



But you're asking my opinion on a question of law.  Which is a matter of fact, not opinion. If what you really mean is "what *should* the law say about the nationality of those people?", I'd say there should be no law and no nationality.


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> But you're asking my opinion on a question of law.  Which is a matter of fact, not opinion. If what you really mean is "what *should* the law say about the nationality of those people?", I'd say there should be no law and no nationality.


Where have I ever asked your opinion on a matter of law? It's a question of morality. You've cheered on the racist state enacting a racist law even offering the paper thin cover of 'it can't be racist because it happened to a white bloke too'. My position is that it's racist and morally wrong. You don't get to argue against that and then pretend you're above the moral argument because you don't believe in nationalities really or some guff.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> Where have I ever asked your opinion on a matter of law?



When you said:


maomao said:


> So you think that a person (not Begum, who I've already said on this thread should be dealt with by local law) who has Bangladeshi parents but has never left the UK is equally Bangladeshi and British?


 Because the question of whether or not someone is British and/or Bangladeshi is a legal one.  (Albeit the question of how they should be considered is a moral one. )




maomao said:


> You've cheered on the racist state enacting a racist law...



I've not cheered it on; I said from the outset I'd have preferred if she'd not been stripped of her British nationality, and repeatedly said that decision can be criticised/should be challenged on a number of bases.  And I've said that (like you) I'd have preferred her to have been tried locally.

You're arguing against a figment of your imagination.


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> When you said:
> Because whether or not someone is British or Bangladeshi is a legal one.  (Albeit the question of how they should be considered is a moral one. )
> 
> 
> ...


You've edited the sense out of my post (and added a random word). I was clearly asking for your opinion on Britishness and Bangladeshiness other than as a legal status. So not asking your legal opinion at all. I don't know why I would. I have no idea who you are or what your CV is.

And you've announced several times on this thread that in your opinion it's not a racist law, implying as usual that your opinion has some sort of legal weight.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> There's plenty of reasons to object to the state's actions, here.  But I find it bizarre that people think the UK public should have to bear the risk of her return because of an accident of birth (her British nationality), but that it's objectionable that she should bear the risk of another accident of birth (her Bangladeshi citizenship), when that risk wouldn't have arisen but for her choice to join a gang of murdering, rapist slavers!



The last part is clearly the problem. That is a value judgement and should not be relevant. ISIS are unpopular now, but it took The Beatles years to get recognised, nobody knows how things will look in the future, that is why law is meant to be objective


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> You've edited the sense out of my post (and added a random word). I was clearly asking for your opinion on Britishness and Bangladeshiness other than as a legal status. So not asking your legal opinion at all. I don't know why I would. I have no idea who you are or what your CV is.
> 
> And you've announced several times on this thread that in your opinion it's not a racist law, implying as usual that your opinion has some sort of legal weight.



I've not edited the sense out of it; it was missing from the original.

And the meaning of your question wasn't clear at all.

I don't think the law is racist*, since, in principle it applies equally regardless of race, and, in practice has been applied to white people in every eligible case of which I'm aware.

*albeit is is discriminatory, as is anything based on nationality.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> The last part is clearly the problem. That is a value judgement and should not be relevant. ISIS are unpopular now, but it took The Beatles years to get recognised, nobody knows how things will look in the future, that is why law is meant to be objective



The idea that bourgeois law is objective is hopelessly naive.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> The idea that bourgeois law is objective is hopelessly naive.



oh come on now. that sounds clever and rebellious but it's actually just a refutation of logic and reason. sort of thing Alaister Crowley would say to justify his Jimmy Saville tendencies

These shitty humanist things are all we have. They are not finished but they are better than nowt


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> I've not edited the sense out of it; it was missing from the original.
> 
> And the meaning of your question wasn't clear at all.
> 
> I don't think the law is racist, since, in principle it applies equally regardless of race, and, in practice has been applied to white people in every eligible case of which I'm aware.


So a law can only be racist if it exclusively affects black or brown people. You can't think of any examples at all of racist laws that affect some white people?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> oh come on now. that sounds clever and rebellious but it's actually just a refutation of logic and reason. sort of thing Alaister Crowley would say to justify his Jimmy Saville tendencies



It's really not. The people who make law do so in their own interests.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> So a law can only be racist if it exclusively affects black or brown people. You can't think of any examples at all of racist laws that affect some white people?



Of course not. But this law doesn't discriminate on racial grounds, either on the face of it or in the way its been applied.


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Of course not. But this law doesn't discriminate on racial grounds, either on the face of it or in the way its been applied.


So it's been applied to people without dual nationality then?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

maomao said:


> So it's been applied to people without dual nationality then?



No, it can't be.  But nationality and race are different.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> It's really not. The people who make law do so in their own interests.



The law is not finished or infallible but there is a principle of reason behind it that gives it legitimacy. Of course people do things in their own interests, this is getting very 6th form


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

Honestly, I've been posting on here for ages and just not enjoying it. Just kill her and let us move on


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> The law is not finished or infallible but there is a principle of reason behind it that gives it legitimacy.



This is meaningless platitude.


----------



## strung out (Jul 18, 2020)

This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.


----------



## maomao (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.


And the racists know to make exceptions for the Aussies and the Americans. It doesn't threaten them because they already have status in UK society. All they have to do is not be terrorists. But it drums in that people in marginalised communities aren't like us. They don't have the same rights. It marginalise them further even if they're not terrorists.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.



Are they?


----------



## LDC (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.



Why are they more likely to be non-white than white? Be interested to see that statistics, I'd have thought the other way tbh.


----------



## strung out (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Are they?


Yep


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> Yep



Do you have any evidence of that?


----------



## strung out (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Do you have any evidence of that?


I'm astounded you could think that white people in this country are more likely to have dual nationality than people of colour.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> I'm astounded you could think that white people in this country are more likely to have dual nationality than people of colour.



Why? Given how many more white people there are.   There must be some stats.


----------



## LDC (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> I'm astounded you could think that white people in this country are more likely to have dual nationality than people of colour.



I'm astounded you think it's that certain given that 80% of the UK is white.









						Ethnicity and religion statistics - Institute of Race Relations
					

These statistics have been collated from a variety of different sources, which have differing ways of categorising and describing ‘race’ and ethnicity. (For example, some sources differentiate between particular black ‘groups’ whilst others do not. Some sources may just use the term Asian...




					www.irr.org.uk


----------



## strung out (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Why? Given how many more white people there are.   There must be some stats.


I worded my first post poorly. People of colour are proportionally more likely to be dual nationals and thus affected by this law than white people. Of course in absolute numbers might be different. It doesn't make the indirect discrimination any more real


----------



## strung out (Jul 18, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'm astounded you think it's that certain given that 80% of the UK is white.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you know more white people are killed by police than black people? That's the same hole you and Athos are going down.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> Did you know more white people are killed by police than black people? That's the same hole you and Athos are going down.



You've not provided any evidence for your assertion that people of colour are more likely to be dual nationals.


----------



## LDC (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> Did you know more white people are killed by police than black people? That's the same hole you and Athos are going down.



No, I was interested in the stats of dual nationality as you raised it, that's not any hole I was going down. I'm not sure either way, but I think it's far from obvious or certain, and was surprised you seemed to think it was.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> I'm astounded you could think that white people in this country are more likely to have dual nationality than people of colour.


Is this a joke?


----------



## IC3D (Jul 18, 2020)

Two most popular threads atm are about the behaviour of teenage girls mostly argued over by middle aged men. Odd.


----------



## strung out (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Is this a joke?


You think white people in this country are more likely to be dual nationals than brown people?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

It's a nonsense argument, anyway, because it affects such a tiny subset of people of colour that race becomes insignificant in practice. And it presumes that a right to racial equality of those whose presence is considered* a threat ought to trump the rights of others - of all races - to safety.

* Though I have gave concerns about the mechanism for reaching this assessment.


----------



## LDC (Jul 18, 2020)

IC3D said:


> Two most popular threads atm are about the behaviour of teenage girls mostly argued over by middle aged men. Odd.



Behaviour ffs? It's not like we're discussing her not tidying her bedroom or skipping lessons is it? Have no idea what other thread you're referring to.

Stop infantilising her, she's 20, would you be so against discussing the actions of a 20 year old fascist or soldier or murderer?

FWIW I do think there's dodgy reasons why she's been picked up on by the media, but that doesn't mean discussing it here is dodgy.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 18, 2020)

this is a very strange thread in the midst of the wind rush scandal and it's resulting effects


when plenty of completely innocent people are losing there status and being deported , losing homes and jobs

making a hostile environment fucking effects


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> You think white people in this country are more likely to be dual nationals than brown people?


I don’t think it’s at all unlikely.


----------



## bellaozzydog (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> That seems a bit naive, and unrealistic.  If, for example, you had gold-plated intelligence that a French person was travelling to the UK to plant a dirty bomb in London that would kill millions, I think most people would think a temporary travel on ban on the French could be a proportionate response in pursuance of a legitimate aim.  What would the alternative be? Let the bomber come?  Ban all travel?



It would be a complete anti terrorism own goal

disruption of normal societal activities is one of the aims

if you want better anti terrorism responses and outcomes properly fund and manpower the organisations supplying those services while closely Scrutinising how they do it and not introducing mega draconian catch all legislation that fucks people human rights for the sake of political posturing)

Obviously I am living in la la Utopia so you may as well make the living conditions and Daily living experience of citizens good enough that less of them are fucked off enough to be open to radicalisation/grooming 

On radicalisation... an interesting read is Going Dark , Julia Ebner.

not a comprehensive study but interesting case studies/experiences

It’s a universal human psychology. Simple to apply


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

strung out said:


> This is a pretty clear example of indirect racial discrimination isn't it? A law that discriminates on the basis of dual nationality, holders of which are people likely to be non-white than white.



It's probably white people who are Irish


----------



## IC3D (Jul 18, 2020)

I think the media picking it up is really dodgy LynnDoyleCooper I don't think this thread is much better running with it.


----------



## freakydave (Jul 18, 2020)

I don't think that it needs to be complicated by race. I think that having dual nationality shouldn't count against you and this is a good example of why


----------



## LDC (Jul 18, 2020)

IC3D said:


> I think the media picking it up is really dodgy LynnDoyleCooper I don't think this thread is much better running with it.



Given the fact Syria, the Syrian Revolution, Rojava, Kurdish stuff and IS have been long running discussion topics here it'd be weirder if this didn't get a long thread tbh.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

freakydave said:


> It's probably white people who are Irish


And a whole host of other people of mixed nationality white parents. Given that 2 of the major countries from which people of colour in the U.K. originate from, India and Pakistan, do not confer automatic citizenship by descent, I would surmise that the majority of people of South Asian heritage born here _do not_ have dual citizenships. That takes an awful lot of people of colour out of Strung Out’s assertion.


----------



## IC3D (Jul 18, 2020)

Completely different set of posters LynnDoyleCooper but sure.


----------



## LDC (Jul 18, 2020)

IC3D said:


> Completely different set of posters LynnDoyleCooper but sure.



Anyway, Saturday night, off to drink lager and eat Thai food and moan about all sorts of other things now.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

bellaozzydog said:


> It would be a complete anti terrorism own goal
> 
> disruption of normal societal activities is one of the aims
> 
> ...



All true.  But, in the hypothetical I gave, funding etc. would require time travel!


----------



## IC3D (Jul 18, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Anyway, Saturday night, off to drink lager and eat Thai food and moan about all sorts of other things now.


Enjoy


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

xenon said:


> I mean, how come no one is saying this guy shouldn't have had his British nationality removed. Cos he's a bloke? Cos he was more directly involved in violence?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He really shouldn't have, even though he's a murdering bastard - he's been left stateless. 

However, someone mentioned him as an example of a white person being stripped of his citizenship, and he's not white. 

The reason there's not as much discussion about him is partly because it was  straightforwardly illegal of the UK to make him stateless, and partly because teenage girls and their dying babies unsurprisingly elicit a little more sympathy. 



Athos said:


> No, it can't be.  But nationality and race are different.



It can and has been done. 

Strung out's right that this law affects more non-white people proportionately. Citizenship is automatic for people whose parents or grandparents were born in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines, and lots of other countries that aren't majority white and have significant populations in the UK. It's absurd to act as if white people are going to be equally affected. The only significant dual nationality of a majority white country in the UK is likely to be Irish, and that's not automatic if it's just grandparents - plus it affects an awful lot of non-white people too.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> And a whole host of other people of mixed nationality white parents. Given that 2 of the major countries from which people of colour in the U.K. originate from, India and Pakistan, do not confer automatic citizenship by descent, I would surmise that the majority of people of South Asian heritage born here _do not_ have dual citizenships. That takes an awful lot of people of colour out of Strung Out’s assertion.



Pakistan does - it's automatic for people with Pakistani parents or grandparents. And although Pakistan doesn't usually allow dual nationality it makes an exception for British.



			Directorate General of Immigration & Passports, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan
		

.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> He really shouldn't have, even though he's a murdering bastard - he's been left stateless.
> 
> However, someone mentioned him as an example of a white person being stripped of his citizenship, and he's not white.
> 
> ...


Pakistan have to register overseas births with the Pakistani embassy for dual nationality so they’re not going to not know about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> He really shouldn't have, even though he's a murdering bastard - he's been left stateless.
> 
> However, someone mentioned him as an example of a white person being stripped of his citizenship, and he's not white.
> 
> ...


It's automatic and there's fucking millions of us.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Pakistan have to register overseas births with the Pakistani embassy for dual nationality so they’re not going to not know about it.



Only if their parents are also citizens by descent. If their parents are citizens by birth, citizenship is automatic. It says that in the link you didn't bother reading. 

What does it matter whether someone knows they've got dual nationality or not??


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 18, 2020)

As stated, the UK will not strip an Irish citizen of UK citizenship as it would be pointless given the Common Travel Area. So Irish heritage folk can be removed from the equation.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As stated, the UK will not strip an Irish citizen of UK citizenship as it would be pointless given the Common Travel Area. So Irish heritage folk can be removed from the equation.



I've already explained why this isn't true.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> It can and has been done.



What, people without dual nationality have been stripped of the British nationality by the government under this provision?  If that's true, I'd be interested to see an example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2020)

The fact that someone with an Irish parent would be in the same situation as someone with a Bangadeshi parent doesn't stop this from being a racist stance. All it means is that 'Irish' can be added to 'Bangladeshi' as an ethnicity that could be discriminated against in this way. 

This could all be very easily cleared up by applying the simple rule that dual nationality can only be considered in such cases if the person in question has taken steps to obtain the second nationality, or, if under age, their parents have done so. Where no such steps have been taken, someone cannot then be treated differently due to the accident of another country's citizenship laws that they may well be entirely unaware of. The saying 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' would then sensibly only apply to UK law, not _every law in every country in the entire world_.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> What, people without dual nationality have been stripped of the British nationality by the government under this providing?  If that's true, I'd be interested to see an example.



There's a link to one in the actual post you were responding to.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The fact that someone with an Irish parent would be in the same situation as someone with a Bangadeshi parent doesn't stop this from being a racist stance. All it means is that 'Irish' can be added to 'Bangladeshi' as an ethnicity that could be discriminated against in this way.
> 
> This could all be very easily cleared up by applying the simple rule that dual nationality can only be considered in such cases if the person in question has taken steps to obtain the second nationality, or, if under age, their parents have done so. Where no such steps have been taken, someone cannot then be treated differently due to the accident of another country's citizenship laws that they may well be entirely unaware of. The saying 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' would then sensibly only apply to UK law, not _every law in every country in the entire world_.



*In practice* who would benefit from this?  I mean who would not be stripped of British nationality that would be under the existing system?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> There's a link to one in the actual post you were responding to.



Were they stripped under that provision, then?  Because, if that made him stateless, then that'd be unlawful.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Were they stripped under that provision, then?  Because, if that made him stateless, then that'd be unlawful.



Why don't you just click on the link?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Why don't you just click on the link?



It doesn't answer the question.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> Were they stripped under that provision, then?  Because, if that made him stateless, then that'd be unlawful.


And the government would never ever do something unlawful


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> And the government would never ever do something unlawful



Of course they would. But they're not going to be prevented from doing those things by changing the law!


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> It doesn't answer the question.



Er, yes it does. It's right there in written words and everything. 

Here's another link about Koty which also states that judges have found against the UK before when they've made people stateless by removing their nationality "for the public good," ie the law you're talking about, so this isn't the first time. 









						Isis 'Beatles' accuse UK of breaking law by removing citizenship
					

Diplomatic stalemate continues over whether Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh should be tried in US or UK




					www.independent.co.uk
				




That also says that terrorists can be prosecuted in the UK for offences committed abroad. So it's wrong to claim that Begum will get away with it if she's tried here. (I don't think you claimed that, but other people did).


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Er, yes it does. It's right there in written words and everything.
> 
> Here's another link about Koty which also states that judges have found against the UK before when they've made people stateless by removing their nationality "for the public good," ie the law you're talking about, so this isn't the first time.
> 
> ...



What I'm trying to establish is under which legal provision the UK stripped him of his British citizenship.  And whether that's been held to be unlawful.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Er, yes it does. It's right there in written words and everything.
> 
> Here's another link about Koty which also states that judges have found against the UK before when they've made people stateless by removing their nationality "for the public good," ie the law you're talking about, so this isn't the first time.
> 
> ...


So you're going to thieve the syrians right to prosecute crimes on their own land? It's reserved for the empire?


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> What I'm trying to establish is under which legal provision the UK stripped him of his British citizenship.  And whether that's been held to be unlawful.



The article says it was under the "good will" law and that it was held to be in violation of international law. 

It's right there in unambiguous words.


----------



## bimble (Jul 18, 2020)

butchersapron said:


> Them crimes in Syria? Those Syrians? Nah British justice is more important than that and them. Fuck that lot.


This was a proper wake up post. 
Maybe a stupid question but how come this hasn’t happened already that people like her be tried and punished by Syrian legal system- Who has control of the camps these people are held in?


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> The article says it was under the "good will" law and that it was held to be in violation of international law.
> 
> It's right there in unambiguous words.



No it doesn't.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> This was a proper wake up post.
> Maybe a stupid question but how come this hasn’t happened already that people like her be tried and punished by Syrian legal system-


Because the liberals would all be up in arms about them being executed.


----------



## bimble (Jul 18, 2020)

It is happening ? Syrian Kurds to put Isis fighters from dozens of countries on trial








						Foreign ISIS fighters pending domestic trials in north-eastern Syria - Enab Baladi
					

The Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES) seems to be determined to establish a special tribunal based […]




					english.enabbaladi.net
				



Can't seem to find anything newer than March, where all the articles seem to say that Syrians were fed up after demanding for ages that other countries take these people back and deal with them so were preparing to do it themselves.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Because the liberals would all be up in arms about them being executed.


Or they could come back here and liberals would be up in arms about them not bring executed


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> Its happening ? Syrian Kurds to put Isis fighters from dozens of countries on trial



States there that the preferred option would have been for foreign fighters to be repatriated and dealt with in their home countries. Maybe some Syrians are more concerned about expending the resources needed to feed and shelter thousands of prisoners than demanding blood for blood.


----------



## bimble (Jul 18, 2020)

Yes all the things i can find seem to say that for a long time they've been asking and waiting for all these other countries, like ours, to take these people, their citizens, away and deal with them where they came from but as nobody is willing to do that they are left with the problem.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2020)

bimble said:


> It is happening ? Syrian Kurds to put Isis fighters from dozens of countries on trial
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> The Foreign Office said that anyone who has fought for, or supported Isis, should face justice “in the most appropriate jurisdiction, which will often be in the region where their offences have been committed”.
> 
> A spokesperson said they could not comment specifically on the Syrian Kurds announcement but added: “Any internationally supported justice mechanism must respect human rights and the rule of law as well as ensure fair trials and due process.”



So... not ours, not our problem. You wanted to repatriate them? Tough.  But... you must respect human rights and the rule of law.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 18, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Because the liberals would all be up in arms about them being executed.



Afaik the Kurds are not including the death penalty in their array of possible punishments.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Jul 18, 2020)

In any case where she is tried and what she is tried for is a separate issue to the removal of her citizenship, which is a tool which has been and will continue to be used against the innocent unless it is opposed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 18, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> In any case where she is tried and what she is tried for is a separate issue to the removal of her citizenship, which is a tool which has been and will continue to be used against the innocent unless it is opposed.


Yep. And arguing against that isn't some kind of tacit comment on, or defence or excuse for, what she and others did as other posters have implied in whattaboutery posts.


----------



## alsoknownas (Jul 18, 2020)

There's a vicious shortsightedness in seeing this as a procedural problem that just affects 'terrorists and nonces'.  Society, in so much as it functions at all, works on a series of principles and institutions.  If you're lucky enough to be able to perpetually lean on these without too much concern, you might miss the fact that for many they shift and dissolve if not vigorously protected.

Citizenship is contested at every level of our society, and potentially at every stage of a person's life.  Just like with other security measures, the crumbling of certainty around 'membership' often trickles down - from legislation purporting to curtail extreme criminality - to a generalised erosion of people's right to participate in society itself.

As a (comparatively mild) example, a couple of years ago, following the 'hostile environment' legislation, which included an extended remit for banks to investigate immigrant bank accounts, myself, and other similarly black and brown customers, were pulled out of a bank queue by an emboldened racist clerk, who felt she was within her rights (she wasn't) to grill us about our immigration status.  If this can happen to me as a a result of cascading discriminatory values, you can be sure that people less equipped or positioned to fight back are going to be similarly targeted by the criminal justice system if we allow it the liberty.

You are sadly shortsighted if you think that people like me are simply being 'soft on terrorists' or whatever.  Where the actual principles of our collective citizenship are weakened in such a prejudicial and arbitrary way it affects us all eventually, even though it might not be simple to see that at first glance.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> No it doesn't.



Are you fucking kidding?



> He claimed the British government’s move to strip them of citizenship was illegal and put them at risk of ”rendition and torture”.
> 
> The UK has removed British citizenship from some known Isis members using a law allowing the move for the “public good”, aiming to prevent militants from returning to Britain.
> 
> ...



You denied that the UK had ever stripped people of their citizenship and left them stateless. They have, more than once. You can try to move the goalposts around if you like, but it just makes you look like a total prick.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> You denied that the UK had ever stripped people of their citizenship and left them stateless. They have, more than once.



No, I didn't. I asked you for evidence that they've done so under that provision. There isn't any. Because it's not possible; that provision can't be used that way. If they've made anyone stateless, it's been done outside the scope of the provision in question i.e. unlawfully (whatever they may claim).


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> No, I didn't. I asked you for evidence that they've done so under that provision. There isn't any. Because it's not possible; that provision can't be used that way. If they've made anyone stateless, it's been done outside the scope of the provision in question i.e. unlawfully (whatever they may claim).



That doesn't make any sense at all. The govt have made people stateless. It might not be the way this legislation was intended to be used, but, as sometimes happens, the govt didn't stick to the letter of their own law.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> That doesn't make any sense at all. The govt have made people stateless. It might not be the way this legislation was intended to be used, but, as sometimes happens, the govt didn't stick to the letter of their own law.



If they broke the law, they didn't do it under the law. You can't say the law is wrong to allow it, when it doesn't!


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> If they broke the law, they didn't do it under the law. You can't say the law is wrong to allow it, when it doesn't!



But it clearly does, because they have used the law to do just what you're claiming they haven't done.

They violated _international_ laws. If a country violates international laws, that doesn't mean the convention-breaking law ceases to exist.


----------



## Athos (Jul 18, 2020)

scifisam said:


> But it clearly does, because they have used the law to do just what you're claiming they haven't done.
> 
> They violated _international_ laws. If a country violates international laws, that doesn't mean the convention-breaking law ceases to exist.



They haven't used the law. They've broken it. It's unlawful in English law - in the very provision in question - to make someone stateless. On the only occasions where they've been found to have made someone stateless purportedly under that provision, the decision has been quashed. And the government acting outside the English law is different from the English law being in breach of the convention.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 18, 2020)

Athos said:


> They haven't used the law. They've broken it. It's unlawful in English law - in the very provision in question - to make someone stateless. On the only occasions where they've been found to have made someone stateless purportedly under that provision, the decision has been quashed. And the government acting outside the English law is different from the English law being in breach of the convention.



It hasn't been quashed in the case of Alexander Kotey (I'm not sure whether the other guy potentially has a second nationality or not). Since you were claiming it had never even happened at all, I'm sceptical that you actually know that it has been quashed every other time. The actions were ruled to be in violation of international laws, but that doesn't automatically reinstate the citizenship of the person it's been removed from.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2020)

scifisam said:


> It hasn't been quashed in the case of Alexander Kotey (I'm not sure whether the other guy potentially has a second nationality or not). Since you were claiming it had never even happened at all, I'm sceptical that you actually know that it has been quashed every other time. The actions were ruled to be in violation of international laws, but that doesn't automatically reinstate the citizenship of the person it's been removed from.


Who has decided that the government acted unlawfully in stripping him of his British nationality?


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 19, 2020)

I think Athos is right here. I don't understand the confusion.


----------



## scifisam (Jul 19, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> I think Athos is right here. I don't understand the confusion.



Really? He claimed the govt didn't strip people of nationality when they weren't dual nationals, and then when shown that they have, moved the goalposts to say he wasn't only talking about them doing so under this specific law. They used this law to strip citizenship. It's a misapplication of the law, but then so is stop and search that overly targets people from ethnic minorities.

_If_ the govt have been forced to make some of those people citizens again, then that doesn't really change matters. They attempted to make people stateless, and those people happened, by pure coincidence, not to be white.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Really? He claimed the govt didn't strip people of nationality when they weren't dual nationals, and then when shown that they have, moved the goalposts to say he wasn't only talking about them doing so under this specific law.



No I haven't.  I've been clear from the outset what law I was talking about i.e. the provision under which Begum was stripped of her nationality. See:



Athos said:


> But this law doesn't discriminate on racial grounds, either on the face of it or in the way its been applied.





maomao said:


> So it's been applied to people without dual nationality then?





Athos said:


> No, it can't be.





scifisam said:


> It can and has been done.







scifisam said:


> They used this law to strip citizenship. It's a misapplication of the law, but then so is stop and search that overly targets people from ethnic minorities.



It's not a misapplication of the law. It's simply outside this law.

I'm quite happy to criticise the government for acting outside this law, but that's different from criticising this law on the basis that it allows them to strip sole nationality - something it explicitly forbids.


But, anyway, weren't you going to provide some evidence that the government acted unlawfully by stripping Kotey of his British citizenship?


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2020)

scifisam said:


> They attempted to make people stateless, and those people happened, by pure coincidence, not to be white.



Ok, that's a slightly different issue from what the law actually allows. But, even then, do you have any evidence that the government has sought to apply this law differently on the basis of race?  For instance, a failure to use it against a white person in the same circumstances where they have used it against a person of colour?

Because the simple fact that it's more often used against people of colour isn't evidence of a racist application of it, if people of colour are are over-represented in the group of people eligible for it to be used against i.e. people thought to have dual nationality who pose a threat to national security.


----------



## Athos (Jul 19, 2020)

Essentially scifisam  you're conflating the content of the law with the way in which the government has sought/purported to apply it.

But, even then, you've not provided any evidence of racism in either aspect.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shit law that's been badly used. But racism is a bit of dead end as a means of criticising it.  (Which I suspect is a reason why that hasn't been a significant element of any of the legal challenges to it.)


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 19, 2020)

scifisam said:


> Really? He claimed the govt didn't strip people of nationality when they weren't dual nationals, and then when shown that they have, moved the goalposts to say he wasn't only talking about them doing so under this specific law. They used this law to strip citizenship. It's a misapplication of the law, but then so is stop and search that overly targets people from ethnic minorities.
> 
> _If_ the govt have been forced to make some of those people citizens again, then that doesn't really change matters. They attempted to make people stateless, and those people happened, by pure coincidence, not to be white.



He said they hadn't done it within the provision of the law being quoted. They haven't because the law stipulates they can do this only if somebody has dual nationality as otherwise they are making someone stateless. Therefore, the action has been taken outside of the law, it's not lawful. 

He hasn't moved any goalposts. If there's one area I expect Athos to have expertise he can express clearly, it's law.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2020)

Athos said:


> Because the simple fact that it's more often used against people of colour isn't evidence of a racist application of it, if people of colour are are over-represented in the group of people eligible for it to be used against i.e. people thought to have dual nationality who pose a threat to national security.



The same mistake is being made by littlebabyjesus and others. The fact that the vast majority of ISIS members are “people of colour” is not proof that laws used against them are racist. Completely ridiculous.


----------



## LDC (Jul 19, 2020)

Fair bit of assuming ethnicity is exactly the same as nationality going on by some too.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 19, 2020)

SpookyFrank said:


> In any case where she is tried and what she is tried for is a separate issue to the removal of her citizenship, which is a tool which has been and will continue to be used against the innocent unless it is opposed.


  Which innocents have been deprived of citizenship?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2020)

dylanredefined said:


> Which innocents have been deprived of citizenship?


Don't hold your breath here.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Afaik the Kurds are not including the death penalty in their array of possible punishments.


Iraq however, have been executing them with gusto.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jul 19, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Fair bit of assuming ethnicity is exactly the same as nationality going on by some too.


Not from me, there isn't. I've been very careful about the way I have used the word 'ethnicity'. It's a slightly slippery concept of course, as are all concepts that aren't to be discovered 'out there' but are rather constructed 'in here'. It is not quite the same as 'race'. Ethnicity is potentially more complex than that, incorporating such things as history, language, culture, religion, and the existence of prejudice and discrimination on the basis of an assumed identity and place of common origin.

Being of Irish origin can very definitely be viewed as an ethnicity here in the UK, given the UK's history and the history of discrimination and prejudice against Irish people in Britain. There would potentially be other 'white' ethnicities to be constructed as well with their names deriving from a country of ancestry - Polish or Spanish, for example.

So seeing past skin colour, being of Bangladeshi origin is different from being of Indian origin, and can sensibly be categorised as as a separate ethnic group given the commonalities of language, culture, religion and history.

I'm more than happy to use the word 'racism' as a catch-all to refer to all discrimination by ethnicity. I think it is accurate to do so because the discrimination is of the same kind. Perhaps others object to that and think it should be restricted for use only in the 'in here'-constructed categories of race that are supposedly based on physical characteristics only. In practice, I think that restricted use is itself problematic, given that 'race' isn't just based on physical characteristics, that such things as history and culture are needed to understand it. But that would be a separate argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2020)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not from me, there isn't. I've been very careful about the way I have used the word 'ethnicity'. It's a slightly slippery concept of course, as are all concepts that aren't to be discovered 'out there' but are rather constructed 'in here'. It is not quite the same as 'race'. Ethnicity is potentially more complex than that, incorporating such things as history, language, culture, religion, and the existence of prejudice and discrimination on the basis of an assumed identity and place of common origin.
> 
> Being of Irish origin can very definitely be viewed as an ethnicity here in the UK, given the UK's history and the history of discrimination and prejudice against Irish people in Britain. There would potentially be other 'white' ethnicities to be constructed as well with their names deriving from a country of ancestry - Polish or Spanish, for example.
> 
> ...


I am disappointed but not surprised that you think of Indian as a single ethnic group, as though nagas and makrani for examples were the same ethnicity

Bangladesh is about 98% bengali. India is much larger and far more diverse country.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 19, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Iraq however, have been executing them with gusto.



Actually they haven’t. Plenty of death sentences doled out, little or no rope action so far.


----------



## maomao (Jul 19, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Actually they haven’t. Plenty of death sentences doled out, little or no rope action so far.


How many are there altogether? All I can find is the largest prison full of Isis prisoners has 70,000 so probably six figures overall. That's a huge death toll for anyone to contemplate whoever they are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2020)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Actually they haven’t. Plenty of death sentences doled out, little or no rope action so far.


At least rope can be used several times as compared with bullets which can only be used once


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 19, 2020)

maomao said:


> How many are there altogether? All I can find is the largest prison full of Isis prisoners has 70,000 so probably six figures overall. That's a huge death toll for anyone to contemplate whoever they are.



Trap door operator will have a right arm like a Man U fan.


----------



## Smangus (Jul 19, 2020)

Pickman's model said:


> At least rope can be used several times as compared with bullets which can only be used once



Not sure celebrations would be quite the same with nooses thrown into the air instead of guns being fired though. 🤔


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 19, 2020)

Smangus said:


> Not sure celebrations would be quite the same with nooses thrown into the air instead of guns being fired though. 🤔


They would be different celebrations and fewer people would be injured by the throwing of nooses


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2020)

maomao said:


> How many are there altogether? All I can find is the largest prison full of Isis prisoners has 70,000 so probably six figures overall. That's a huge death toll for anyone to contemplate whoever they are.


Half of those are kids though. Take them out of the equation and it all looks perfectly doable.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 19, 2020)

dylanredefined said:


> Which innocents have been deprived of citizenship?



Members of the Windrush generation?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 19, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Members of the Windrush generation?


Yep, cos that’s exactly correct context here


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jul 19, 2020)

dylanredefined said:


> Which innocents have been deprived of citizenship?


they are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, surely?

isn't that the sort of "British value" we should all be defending?


----------



## scifisam (Jul 20, 2020)

Red Cat said:


> He said they hadn't done it within the provision of the law being quoted. They haven't because the law stipulates they can do this only if somebody has dual nationality as otherwise they are making someone stateless. Therefore, the action has been taken outside of the law, it's not lawful.
> 
> He hasn't moved any goalposts. If there's one area I expect Athos to have expertise he can express clearly, it's law.



No - the law says that the UK govt can't strip people of their citizenship and make them stateless. The UK govt has, however, done just that. It's the same as convicting someone for murder without sufficient evidence.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Yep, cos that’s exactly correct context here



British citizens until the arbiters and hostile environmentalists decide otherwise.


----------



## dylanredefined (Jul 20, 2020)

krtek a houby said:


> Members of the Windrush generation?


  They weren't deported for being terrorists.
Just staggeringly bureaucratic nonsense and stupidity which is hard to differentiate from pure evil


pseudonarcissus said:


> they are all innocent until proven guilty is a court of law, surely?
> 
> isn't that the sort of "British value" we should all be defending?


                    Bit hard to have a fair trial of a terrorist whose in a hostile foreign country.


----------



## Athos (Jul 20, 2020)

scifisam said:


> No - the law says that the UK govt can't strip people of their citizenship and make them stateless. The UK govt has, however, done just that. It's the same as convicting someone for murder without sufficient evidence.



And how is the fact that the government sometimes acts unlawfully evidence that a particular law is racist and/or allows the government to make people stateless?

Also, are you going to provide some evidence to support your claim that the government acted unlawfully in stripping Kotey of his British citizenship?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Jul 20, 2020)

dylanredefined said:


> Bit hard to have a fair trial of a_*n alleged *_terrorist whose in a hostile foreign country.


Fixed that for you. I think all the Supreme Court is trying to do is ensure the principle comes above logistics.


----------



## bimble (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Half of those are kids though. Take them out of the equation and it all looks perfectly doable.


What would you do with the thousands of children in these ISIS camps, if you were the boss of the world?
I just read that Sweden France & Germany have taken some orphaned kids from the camps, the offspring of dead fighters from those countries presumably, but won't take any with living mothers. Apart from that the only known repatriations of women & children have been done by Russia, Kosovo, Kazakhstan Uzbekistan and Macedonia, thats it (?). Thousands of kids growing up in that environment isn't just a humanitarian issue its got to be a security one too. half of them are under 5 years old apparently.


			https://cgpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CGP-Children-of-ISIS-June-2020.pdf


----------



## Red Cat (Jul 20, 2020)

scifisam said:


> No - the law says that the UK govt can't strip people of their citizenship and make them stateless. The UK govt has, however, done just that. It's the same as convicting someone for murder without sufficient evidence.



The first sentence is exactly what I said. As did Athos. Therefore, the UK govt has broken the law, not used the law to do this, as you were claiming.


----------



## xenon (Jul 20, 2020)

They should make it illegal to break the law.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

scifisam said:


> No - the law says that the UK govt can't strip people of their citizenship and make them stateless. The UK govt has, however, done just that. It's the same as convicting someone for murder without sufficient evidence.


Sam, if I shoot Bahnhof Strasse, I've broken the law. I haven't used the law (or corrupted it) to kill him.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

bimble said:


> What would you do with the thousands of children in these ISIS camps, if you were the boss of the world?
> I just read that Sweden France & Germany have taken some orphaned kids from the camps, the offspring of dead fighters from those countries presumably, but won't take any with living mothers. Apart from that the only known repatriations of women & children have been done by Russia, Kosovo, Kazakhstan Uzbekistan and Macedonia, thats it (?). Thousands of kids growing up in that environment isn't just a humanitarian issue its got to be a security one too. half of them are under 5 years old apparently.
> 
> 
> https://cgpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/CGP-Children-of-ISIS-June-2020.pdf


The kids are the difficult part. I'd do as Sweden, Germany and France, but am open to alternative suggestions that don't involve repatriating the adults.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> The kids are the difficult part. I'd do as Sweden, Germany and France, but am open to alternative suggestions that don't involve repatriating the adults.


What about child fighters?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

Which ones?


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Which ones?


Well that's sort of my point. What about a boy who started fighting at 14 because his parents were fighters and is 19 in a prison/refugee camp now? Death penalty?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> Well that's sort of my point. What about a boy who started fighting at 14 because his parents were fighters and is 19 in a prison/refugee camp now? Death penalty?


If he's over 18 now and took part in genocide and rape he too should be subject to the laws of Iraq or Syria depending on where he committed the crimes.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> If he's over 18 now and took part in genocide and rape he too should be subject to the laws of Iraq or Syria depending on where he committed the crimes.


We've all agreed on the jurisdiction. Or at least you seem to as long as you think the Iraqis and Kurds agree with you. It's still a moral question. We're still allowed to have opinions. It's not like any of the other opinions we express on here have any bearing on real world events anyway. I'm asking what you would do in the Kurds' position.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm asking what you would do in the Kurds' position.


Hand them over to the Iraqis.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Hand them over to the Iraqis.


OK, what would you do in the Iraqis position?


----------



## LDC (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> Well that's sort of my point. What about a boy who started fighting at 14 because his parents were fighters and is 19 in a prison/refugee camp now? Death penalty?



There won't be many (or even any?) of those given the timescales (they'd be a narrow window of age they went and then became old enough to fight) and fighting (they'd have to have survived) though surely? Anyone have the numbers of kids taken by their parents from the UK to Syria?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> OK, what would you do in the Iraqis position?


Try them according to the law and sentence them accordingly.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> There won't be many (or even any?) of those given the timescales (they'd be a narrow window of age they went and then became old enough to fight) and fighting (they'd have to have survived) though surely? Anyone have the numbers of kids taken by their parents from the UK to Syria?


Begum was 15 when she went and is 21 now.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Try them according to the law and sentence them accordingly.


So why not have the Kurds try them?


----------



## LDC (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> Begum was 15 when she went and is 21 now.



Yeah I know. Got any numbers of people from the UK that went there as children and ended up fighting and survived and are in camps?


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah I know. Got any numbers of people from the UK that went there as children and ended up fighting and survived and are in camps?


Dunno. There's tonnes from Syria and surrounding countries though. Why do they have to be from the UK?


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> So why not have the Kurds try them?


I’d question whether the Kurds have the facilities to safely detain thousands of people serving substantial sentences, and then there are jurisdictional issues. But now that this is the reality of the situation, having the Kurds try them is probably the least worst option.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I’d question whether the Kurds have the facilities to safely detain thousands of people serving substantial sentences, and then there are jurisdictional issues. But now that this is the reality of the situation, having the Kurds try them is probably the least worst option.


So you don't want to actually say what you'd do with hypothetical child soldiers. Don't blame you.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> So you don't want to actually say what you'd do with hypothetical child soldiers. Don't blame you.


I’ve said exactly what I’d do with them in the hypothetical situation you’ve given. I just didn’t stick my foot into the trap that you were trying to set


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Sam, if I shoot Bahnhof Strasse, I've broken the law. I haven't used the law (or corrupted it) to kill him.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Sam, if I shoot Bahnhof Strasse, I've broken the law. I haven't used the law (or corrupted it) to kill him.


depends if you claim self-defence or not


----------



## two sheds (Jul 20, 2020)

or whether he's out of control on a boat


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2020)

two sheds said:


> or whether he's out of control on a boat


he's often out of control on urban so it wouldn't be surprising if he was equally out of control on a boat


----------



## LDC (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> Dunno. There's tonnes from Syria and surrounding countries though. Why do they have to be from the UK?



I assumed that was who you were meaning as we were talking about them being stripped of UK citizenship and being brought back here or not that's why.

But OK a wider question, yeah they'll be a fair number of younger fighters from areas IS took.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I’ve said exactly what I’d do with them in the hypothetical situation you’ve given. I just didn’t stick my foot into the trap that you were trying to set


The trap of having an opinion? You've already advocated getting the kids out and bombing the rest and now you're hiding behind an uncharacteristic anti imperialist position because you think the Iraqis especially will do what you want. I just want to know what you mean by 'get the kids out' cause they're not all cute little five year olds. Some of them are teenagers who've been killing.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> You've already advocated getting the kids out and bombing the rest ...


I wish I'd never said that now. Most people realised it was tongue in cheek trolling but it's given a few dickheads ammunition hasn't it? This is like when you banged-on for a year or more that I'm an advocator of genital mutilation because I said that cyclists who crash red lights should have their dicks nailed to their saddles!    


> ...  and now you're hiding behind an uncharacteristic anti imperialist position because you think the Iraqis especially will do what you want.


So there we have it. _That's_ the trap that you were trying to set of course, but now that it hasn't worked you're pretending it did anyway and that you've proven a point. You haven't. I've even said that I'd (grudgingly) find trial by the Kurds acceptable but you've ignored that because you obviously want to whine something about me advocating mass capital punishment by Iraqi proxy. Sorry to have disappointed you.

I've been perfectly clear since the beginning of this thread what I think sould happen and I've been perfectly clear in responding to your silly attempted gotchas.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2020)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I assumed that was who you were meaning as we were talking about them being stripped of UK citizenship and being brought back here or not that's why.
> 
> But OK a wider question, yeah they'll be a fair number of younger fighters from areas IS took.


perhaps not for that long if the sas and other forces in the area keep killing them








						Elite SAS Soldiers Wipe out 100 ISIS Fighters in "Jihadi Cave" Mission
					

ISIS Fighters SAS IRAQ




					www.euroweeklynews.com


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I wish I'd never said that now. Most people realised it was tongue in cheek trolling but it's given a few dickheads ammunition hasn't it? This is like when you banged-on for a year or more that I'm an advocator of genital mutilation because I said that cyclists who crash red lights should have their dicks nailed to their saddles!
> 
> So there we have it. _That's_ the trap that you were trying to set of course, but now that it hasn't worked you're pretending it did anyway and that you've proven a point. You haven't. I've even said that I'd (grudgingly) find trial by the Kurds acceptable but you've ignored that because you want to whine something about me advocating capital punishment by Iraqi proxy. Sorry to have disappointed you.
> 
> I've been perfectly clear since the beginning of this thread what I think sould happen and I've been perfectly clear in responding to your silly attempted gotchas.


I'm not opposing capital punishment across the board  though. I'm opposing automatic capital punishment for all enemy combatants. And I'm particularly concerned about child soldiers. You just want to swing your justice boner about without actually making a coherent argument.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> Sam, if I shoot Bahnhof Strasse, I've broken the law. I haven't used the law (or corrupted it) to kill him.


you might use the necessity defence of course

tho it might backfire and result in a longer sentence


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> I'm opposing automatic capital punishment for all enemy combatants.


I've no particular problem with that. You're just getting yourself jizzed-up on the thought that because I've advocated Iraqi or Syrian justice, I've advocated blanket capital punishment. I haven't, but _it wouldn't bother me_ if they hanged them all. There's a difference.


----------



## maomao (Jul 20, 2020)

Spymaster said:


> I've no particular problem with that. You're just getting yourself jizzed-up on the thought that because I've advocated Iraqi or Syrian justice, I've advocated blanket capital punishment. I haven't, but _it wouldn't bother me_ if they hanged them all. There's a difference.


The difference presumably being the ability to have a consistent point of view and argue it.


----------



## Spymaster (Jul 20, 2020)

maomao said:


> The difference presumably being the ability to have a consistent point of view and argue it.


Well as ever, I can argue it perfectly consistently for you and have done. I just can't understand it for you or adjust it to fit what you'd prefer me to have said.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

Begum's appeal unanimously dismissed by the Supreme Court.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 26, 2021)

Reading earlier that her advocates were hanging their hopes on that she couldn't do the hearing remotely as she has no access to facilities to achieve that. Seeing her do a TV interview previously from the camp must have made that point seem a bit far fetched...


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 26, 2021)

Huge relief for Priti Patel.


----------



## steeplejack (Feb 26, 2021)

Kind of like an Old Firm game this case in that you want both sides to lose very badly.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Poor decision imo. I stand by all the objections to it made in this thread. Double-tier citizenship dependent on your ethnicity. It stinks.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Poor decision imo. I stand by all the objections to it made in this thread. Double-tier citizenship dependent on your ethnicity. It stinks.



Subtle - but it removes your argument -  point, not _ethnicity, _but nationality.

She could be ethnically European, but if her parents had been born in Bangladesh the situation would be the same. As it would be - and has been shown - when the other state is Canada.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Subtle - but it removes your argument -  point, not _ethnicity, _but nationality.


Nothing subtle about it. It's huge, and absolutely pertinent.


----------



## Flavour (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> shame we cannot kick Patel out of the country as well she is fair more dangerous than Begum



Not ok to say this


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Poor decision imo. I stand by all the objections to it made in this thread. Double-tier citizenship dependent on your ethnicity. It stinks.



I can't say I can muster a huge amount of sympathy for Begum individually but as has been noted the precedent set here is very dangerous and will be used against innocent people. 

The main thing that concerns me though is the performative frothing vitriol of some of the posters on this thread, celebrating as if something that would in any way affect their lives has taken place. Its worth remembering that the people who are working themselves into a frenzy wishing death upon her are exactly the kind of vulnerable, troubled souls who would - in different circumstances - run away and join a group like Daesh simply to feel a sense of belonging and meaning, just like she did.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> shame we cannot kick Patel out of the country as well she is fair more dangerous than Begum



Give her time, she'll probably try and have herself deported.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Not ok to say this



Why? It's correct.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Why? It's correct.


Nah I agree with Flavour. Using a person's ethnicity against them is wrong, no matter how vile that person is. Applies to Begum and applies to Patel.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

Flavour said:


> Not ok to say this



which part kick her out or that she is more dangerous than Begum


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah I agree with Flavour. Using a person's ethnicity against them is wrong, no matter how vile that person is. Applies to Begum and applies to Patel.



Is that was being said? Ax^ said it was a shame Patel can't be kicked out of the country because she was dangerous, not because of her ethnicity.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

oh to me they are just British if that clears it up only one has had they citizenship stripped away

**


----------



## MickiQ (Feb 26, 2021)

My position is the same as it was, when all this began. Whilst I care nothing for this woman as an individual I'm not happy with the idea that politicians can strip someone of British citizenship acquired by birthright for any reaon at all. TBF I think this thread has been done to death now.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I can't say I can muster a huge amount of sympathy for Begum individually but as has been noted the precedent set here is very dangerous and will be used against innocent people.



This case doesn't set any such precedent.  Hundreds of dual nationals (of various nationalities/ethnicities) have been stripped of their British citizenship.  And there is a well-established system of oversight, judicial scrutiny, and appeal to mitigate against the power being used improperly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is that was being said? Ax^ said it was a shame Patel can't be kicked out of the country because she was dangerous, not because of her ethnicity.


Suggesting that you'd like someone to be deported when that person has brown skin and is the daughter of refugees isn't neutral, however much you might wish it to be.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is that was being said? Ax^ said it was a shame Patel can't be kicked out of the country because she was dangerous, not because of her ethnicity.


 Like Begum.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> This case doesn't set any such precedent.  Hundreds of dual nationals (of various nationalities/ethnicities) have been stripped of their British citizenship.  And there is a well-established system of oversight, judicial scrutiny, and appeal to mitigate against the power being used improperly.



"The state will ensure that no impropriety will be allowed to occur..."


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> This case doesn't set any such precedent.  Hundreds of dual nationals (of various nationalities/ethnicities) have been stripped of their British citizenship.  And there is a well-established system of oversight, judicial scrutiny, and appeal to mitigate against the power being used improperly.



She isn't a dual national, she's effectively stateless. 

She's "eligible" for a Bangladeshi passport but has never held one or afaik been to Bangladesh.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Suggesting that you'd like someone to be deported when that person has brown skin and is the daughter of refugees isn't neutral, however much you might wish it to be.



Bending the stick way too far there mate. The existence of racist sentiment in society doesn't automatically mean that anyone who expresses antipathy towards an individual who is black is expressing racist sentiment.

They might be, sure, maybe they wouldn't say they'd like to Johnson or Gove to be deported in which case yeah thats a statement which is influenced by racism and race, but you can't just assume it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Like Begum.



We can measure the dangers Patel poses to people. The idea that Begum is dangerous is just your projection. She might be dangerous, but you don't know.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

Artaxerxes said:


> She isn't a dual national, she's effectively stateless.
> 
> She's "eligible" for a Bangladeshi passport but has never held one or afaik been to Bangladesh.



This is simply wrong in law. She is a Bangladeshi national, by virtue of Bangladeshi law (as set out at length earlier in the thread).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Bending the stick way too far there mate. The existence of racist sentiment in society doesn't automatically mean that anyone who expresses antipathy towards an individual who is black is expressing racist sentiment.
> 
> They might be, sure, maybe they wouldn't say they'd like to Johnson or Gove to be deported in which case yeah thats a statement which is influenced by racism and race, but you can't just assume it.


You miss the point. The statement may not be intended to come across as referencing Patel's race. But that intention isn't enough on its own. We don't live in a neutral world where we can ignore that context.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> This is simply wrong in law. She is a Bangladeshi national, by virtue of Bangladeshi law (as set out at length earlier in the thread).



Yeah we did that to death, your arguments weren't conclusive, in fact nobodys were to be honest because an interpretation would need to be made by a Bangladeshi court and it never will be. Lets not reopen it it was dull.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> This is simply wrong in law. She is a Bangladeshi national, by virtue of Bangladeshi law (as set out at length earlier in the thread).


Maybe tell Bangladesh that.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 26, 2021)

She can still appeal against losing her citizenship.   She just can't come back to the uk in the meantime.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You miss the point. The statement may not be intended to come across as referencing Patel's race. But that intention isn't enough on its own. We don't live in a neutral world where we can ignore that context.



There is a difference between racist sentiment and sentiment that could be assumed to imply racism.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> We can measure the dangers Patel poses to people. The idea that Begum is dangerous is just your projection. She might be dangerous, but you don't know.



I know she joined (and remained part of) a vile organisation she must have known was responsible for mass rape, enslavement, murder, and unspeakable cruelty. That, in itself, tells me she's dangerous.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I know she joined (and remained part of) a vile organisation she must have known was responsible for mass rape, enslavement, murder, and unspeakable cruelty. That, in itself, tells me she's dangerous.



Give it a rest with your conjecture dressed up as fact, please.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You miss the point. The statement may not be intended to come across as referencing Patel's race. But that intention isn't enough on its own. We don't live in a neutral world where we can ignore that context.



would strapping her to a rocket and firing her into the sun still have the racial element


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Maybe tell Bangladesh that.



I couldn't care less whether or not Bangladesh acts lawfully with regard to this particular Bangladeshi.


----------



## Artaxerxes (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> This is simply wrong in law. She is a Bangladeshi national, by virtue of Bangladeshi law (as set out at length earlier in the thread).



She's fucked 



> *IV. What about De Facto Statelessness?*
> 
> Although Begum may not be _de jure _stateless, since the laws of Bangladesh afford her citizenship, there is reason to believe she is _de facto _stateless due to Bangladesh’s stated refusal to recognise her as a citizen. With Bangladeshi officials stating they will refuse her entry, and that she is not and never was a citizen,[12] there is cause for concern that the UK’s deprivation of her citizenship will render her stateless in effect. She would not have access to a passport, consular protection abroad, or a country to which she could return or settle. Without many of the rights and privileges we have come to expect to go hand in hand with citizenship, an individual is stateless in effect, even if the laws state otherwise.











						Bangladeshi or Stateless? A Practical Analysis of Shamima Begum’s Status
					

By Ryan Corbett. Legal practitioner and researcher currently based in Paris, France. Her focus is citizenship and refugee law, including how citizenship law can lead to migration issues. She has ex…




					internationallaw.blog


----------



## kebabking (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> shame we cannot kick Patel out of the country as well she is fair more dangerous than Begum



It was Sajid Javid who revoked her British citizenship, not Priti Patel - or do they all look the same to you?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Give it a rest with your conjecture dressed up as fact, please.


No part of that was conjecture; all facts (however inconvenient you might find them).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

If she had been 21, they couldn't have done this. They've taken advantage of a technicality, and this rotten decision now places all UK citizens with Bangladeshi parents in a different category of citizenship, one that is conditional in a way that the citizenship of others is not, until they turn 21.

She didn't even know she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. She isn't Bangladeshi. She is British. Any argument to the contrary is sophistry.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> It was Sajid Javid who revoked her British citizenship, not Priti Patel - or do they all look the same to you?



never said Patel revoked her citizenship and he can alsp be fired into the sun


----------



## scifisam (Feb 26, 2021)

Law aside, I can't see how anyone can express good feelings about this outcome. She was a teenager when she left and she's had two children die already. Poor fucking stupid kid.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

scifisam said:


> Law aside, I can't see how anyone can express good feelings about this outcome. She was a teenager when she left and she's had two children die already. Poor fucking stupid kid.


Three.


----------



## 19force8 (Feb 26, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Reading earlier that her advocates were hanging their hopes on that she couldn't do the hearing remotely as she has no access to facilities to achieve that. Seeing her do a TV interview previously from the camp must have made that point seem a bit far fetched...


Why?

Was the tv interview by live link from the UK and lasting several days?

Because if it wasn't then it's hardly proof that there are sufficient facilities for her to be electronically present in court.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

scifisam said:


> Law aside, I can't see how anyone can express good feelings about this outcome. She was a teenager when she left and she's had two children die already. Poor fucking stupid kid.


And they could only do this to her because she was a teenager when she left. That's possibly the most shameful aspect of it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> would starting her to a rocket and firing her into the sun still have the racial element



Anyone wanting to keep this one going should either answer this question or leave it


Athos said:


> No part of that was conjecture; all facts (however inconvenient you might find them).



The phrase "must have" is fact? 

Piss off you disingenuous tool.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If she had been 21, they couldn't have done this. They've taken advantage of a technicality ...



It's not a technicality._ It's the law_. Bangladeshi law.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Three.



Oh good, you're slut shaming now.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If she had been 21, they couldn't have done this. They've taken advantage of a technicality, and this rotten decision now places all UK citizens with Bangladeshi parents in a different category of citizenship, one that is conditional in a way that the citizenship of others is not, until they turn 21.
> 
> She didn't even know she was entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship. She isn't Bangladeshi. She is British. Any argument to the contrary is sophistry.



All dual citizens are in a different category than those without single citizenship (which may be a benefit or disbenefit).  Those who are automatically dual Bangladeshi citizens are able renounce it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Anyone wanting to keep this one going should either answer this question or leave it
> 
> 
> The phrase "must have" is fact?
> ...



You honestly think there was any possibility that she was unaware of what IS was doing?  Really?  Come on, this is desperate.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> All dual citizens are in a different category than those without single citizenship (which may be a benefit or disbenefit).  Those who are automatically dual Bangladeshi citizens are able renounce it.


If they know about it, which many will not. This is exactly the sophistry I'm talking about.


----------



## LDC (Feb 26, 2021)

So far this year there's been about 20 folks murdered in that camp by gangs of IS supporting women for not following the IS 'laws' and expectations.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh good, you're slut shaming now.


No, you fool, I'm correcting a factual mistake (not that facts are important to you, it'd seem).


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If they know about it, which many will not.



That's a fair point. Though a lot of people fall foul of laws of which they're ignorant. And, I should think many more Bangladeshis are aware of it now.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If they know about it, which many will not. This is exactly the sophistry I'm talking about.


Whether or not they're aware of it they can make the whole point moot by simply not travelling thousands of miles to join terrorist rape cults.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Oh good, you're slut shaming now.



Ah, no, he was just correcting me. 

Three dead kids already - yeah, she must be living in the lap of luxury.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, you fool, I'm correcting a factual mistake (not that facts are important to you, it'd seem).



For what reason? Is it relevant or important? No. You just want to say it was three kids, _actually._


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

scifisam said:


> Ah, no, he was just correcting me.
> 
> Three dead kids already - yeah, she must be living in the lap of luxury.



Take the point it could be innocent but he's got form.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Whether or not they're aware of it they can make the whole point moot by simply not travelling thousands of miles to join terrorist rape cults.



As if you wouldn't have joined Daesh or the Hitler youth or the Contras or whatever in the right circumstances. 

Your moral superiority is vacuous.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Take the point it could be innocent but he's got form.



Form for what?  You should back that up or retract and apologise.  That you have to resort to this is pathetic.


----------



## scifisam (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Take the point it could be innocent but he's got form.



No, definite that he was just correcting a fact.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> For what reason? Is it relevant or important? No. You just want to say it was three kids, _actually._



Yes, it is really relevant as one died after she was stripped of her British citizenship!


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> As if you wouldn't have joined Daesh or the Hitler youth or the Contras or whatever in the right circumstances.
> 
> Your moral superiority is vacuous.



The right circumstances - I suppose you mean if you had no choice.  

She had every choice.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The right circumstances - I suppose you mean if you had no choice.
> 
> She had every choice.



No, I don't mean in a situation where there was no choice.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> As if you wouldn't have joined Daesh or the Hitler youth or the Contras or whatever in the right circumstances.
> 
> Your moral superiority is vacuous.


 You fucking weirdo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

She had a choice. You don't have to deny her agency here entirely. In fact, I don't excuse anything she's done. But that doesn't make this right. This isn't about whether or not she is a good person, or even whether or not she is someone who could be 'saved'. It's very simply about whether or not she should have her British citizenship taken away from her. This is the UK government acting like shits and creating a very damaging precedent with a dishonest argument.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

She was groomed online when she was underage. Are 15 year old girls who get groomed by paedophiles responsible for their abuse? They have agency too don't they?


----------



## tim (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> shame we cannot kick Patel out of the country as well she is fair more dangerous than Begum



There's no justification for racist shit like this.


----------



## Yossarian (Feb 26, 2021)

I'm a dual national and while I have no immediate plans to fight overseas to establish an Islamic caliphate, I definitely feel like this decision has downgraded my citizenship.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Form for what?  You should back that up or retract and apologise.  That you have to resort to this is pathetic.



Earlier in the thread there was a lot of innuendo thrown around about her breeding terror babies and deserving everything she got for sleeping with/marrying Daesh fighters until someone took it too far and said "the sl*t got what she deserved" and then everyone was a bit sheepish for a bit. You were involved in that weren't you? You have been part of the group of posters talking about her breeding? 

Added to which I just think your posts are generally pretty reactionary.

Dunno what you're complaining about. It might be inconvenient to you but my opinions and conjecture are just #factz.

#FactzBantz


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> She had a choice. You don't have to deny her agency here entirely. In fact, I don't excuse anything she's done. But that doesn't make this right. This isn't about whether or not she is a good person, or even whether or not she is someone who could be 'saved'. It's very simply about whether or not she should have her British citizenship taken away from her. This is the UK government acting like shits and creating a very damaging precedent with a dishonest argument.



The government has been opportunistic, and, I suspect, motivated (at least in part) by populism. And, without knowing the intelligence, its hard to know the full extent of any that she poses.  But I'm not sure how it's been dishonest about this?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> would starting her to a rocket and firing her into the sun still have the racial element



Again, anyone wanting to suggest what Ax^ said is racist should either answer this question or leave it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, it is really relevant as one died after she was stripped of her British citizenship!



You've lost me there, why is that relevant?


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

tim said:


> There's no justification for racist shit like this.



from my own point of view it was not about race just her being a horrible human being who more dangerous to the country that begam

both of them are just British to me 
both radicalised just one in a refugee camp with her citizenship stripped and the other a member of the cabinet

take what you will from it


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Earlier in the thread there was a lot of innuendo thrown around about her breeding terror babies and deserving everything she got for sleeping with/marrying Daesh fighters until someone took it too far and said "the sl*t got what she deserved" and then everyone was a bit sheepish for a bit. You were involved in that weren't you? You have been part of the group of posters talking about her breeding?
> 
> Added to which I just think your posts are generally pretty reactionary.
> 
> ...



No, you're wrong again. I didn't endorse the 'breeding factory' stuff; in fact I said it was crass.

It speaks to the paucity of your arguments that, rather than address my points, you have to resort to false slurs.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> from my own point of view it was not about race just her being a horrible human being who more dangerous to the country that begam
> 
> both of them are just British to me
> both radicalised just one in a refugee camp with her citizenship stripped and the other a member of the cabinet
> ...



I think what we can take from it is that no one wants to make the argument that its racist to want to fire Patel into the sun but also nobody wants to say its fine to say you want to fire Patel into the sun just as long as you don't say you would like to see her kicked out of the country.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> You've lost me there, why is that relevant?



Because the death of the third child could've been avoided but for the Home Secretary's decision. That must be relevant to a discussion about whether or not that decision was right!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, you're wrong again. I didn't endorse the 'breeding factory' stuff; in fact I said it was crass.
> 
> It speaks to the paucity of your arguments that, rather than address my points, you have to resort to false slurs.



That's right, I remember. You were fine with it until that particular intervention and then you said it was crass. Not blatantly misogynistic mind, just crass because it was a little too obvious. 

I'm getting good at this making facts out of conjecture thing aren't I?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Because the death of the third child could've been avoided but for the Home Secretary's decision. That must be relevant to a discussion about whether or not that decision was right!



Ahhh, I see what you mean. But it wouldn't actually affect the decision would it? Because the decision isn't based on whether or not lives can be saved. Thats not how the law works. The decision is based on whether or not the UK govt had any obligation to the child not the risk to the child's life.

Thank you for reminding me that the decision could potentially have cost the life of an innocent child though, I had forgotten.


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think what we can take from it is that no one wants to make the argument that its racist to want to fire Patel into the sun but also nobody wants to say its fine to say you want to fire Patel into the sun just as long as you don't say you would like to see her kicked out of the country.



not like Patel herself has rabidly supported deportations or even support legislation that would of stopped her own family for entering the country either


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> That's right, I remember. You were fine with it until that particular intervention and then you said it was crass. Not blatantly misogynistic mind, just crass because it was a little too obvious.
> 
> I'm getting good at this making facts out of conjecture thing aren't I?



Not really, no.  Desperate stuff.  I'm embarrassed for you.

On the facts v conjecture point. Are you really saying there's a serious chance she didn't know what IS was doing whilst living there?

There plenty of grounds on which to criticise this law, and the outcome of this case (as I have).  But this is spectacularly weak.


----------



## BobDavis (Feb 26, 2021)

Not read the whole thread so dunno if this point has been made already but the hypocrisy of the right wing media is alive & well here. Here is a girl 14/15 when she was groomed online & then went to Syria but she is responsible for her own actions & yet recall the premiership footballer a few years ago jailed for having sex with a 15 year old girl fan. He was vile pedo scum & the girl an innocent child groomed online. 

Certainly the footballer should have been banged up & certainly this young woman should not be stripped of her citizenship on the dodgy grounds that she is eligible for citizenship of Pakistan when that country has made it clear they will not grant it or let her on their soil.

The young woman appeared unrepentant while being interviewed in the refugee camp but she can hardly slag off Isis in their own backyard.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Ax^ said:


> not like Patel herself has rabidly supported deportations or even support legislation that would of stopped her own family for entering the country either



Now, see there I've got some sympathy if that's your point because obviously you're singling Patel out for criticism you wouldn't make of the rest of the Tories because she's the child of refugees. Im not saying its wrong but it doesn't sit totally comfortably with me. We can oppose the policies but I'm not sure about implicitly saying it is somehow worse that she supports these policies because she benefited from asylum herself.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Not really, no.  Desperate stuff.  I'm embarrassed for you.
> 
> On the facts v conjecture point. Are you really saying there's a serious chance she didn't know what IS was doing whilst living there?
> 
> There plenty of grounds on which to criticise this law, and the outcome of this case (as I have).  But this is spectacularly weak.



My objection was to you claiming that you can know for certain that she is dangerous if you remember.

I don't really see what point you're making re her knowing what Daesh were doing while she was there, none of us know anything about what she thought when she was there. I like a bet so I'd happily bet she saw some very dark stuff and that she wished she'd never gone a few times, but I don't know that.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Ahhh, I see what you mean. But it wouldn't actually affect the decision would it? Because the decision isn't based on whether or not lives can be saved. Thats not how the law works. The decision is based on whether or not the UK govt had any obligation to the child not the risk to the child's life.



It might affect the decision, insofar as it does to the 'conducive to the public good' part of the statutory test.

In any event, any critique if the law ought to consider such unintended consequences. 

Also, I'm not sure you understand how the law works.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> you're singling Patel out for criticism you wouldn't make of the rest of the Tories because she's the child of refugees.


She's not the child of refugees. They left Uganda in the 60s well before Amin started expelling Asians.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> My objection was to you claiming that you can know for certain that she is dangerous if you remember.
> 
> I don't really see what point you're making re her knowing what Daesh were doing while she was there, none of us know anything about what she thought when she was there. I like a bet so I'd happily bet she saw some very dark stuff and that she wished she'd never gone a few times, but I don't know that.



The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk.  Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision.  I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.


----------



## Flavour (Feb 26, 2021)

The point is, Ax^ , that you should leave talk of kicking people out of countries to the far right and stop making excuses for it


----------



## Ax^ (Feb 26, 2021)

Flavour said:


> The point is, Ax^ , that you should leave talk of kicking people out of countries to the far right and stop making excuses for it



fair point Patel is still a horrible human being none the less


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk.  Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision.  I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.


What if she'd been eleven rather than fifteen when it happened? If she hadn't turned and run away on her sixteenth birthday would it still have been a question of her agency?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> She's not the child of refugees. They left Uganda in the 60s well before Amin started expelling Asians.



Apologies, I'm just repeating what others have said on thread, don't know anything about her background myself.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk.  Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision.  I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.



But you don't know if she chose to remain. And neither do I. This is just conjecture. 

I might say - in fact I would say - that I doubt Daesh just let teenage brides leave if they get freaked out when they see atrocities and death, and that the idea that she freely chose to stay sounds a bit daft. But I don't know. Its just conjecture.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> What if she'd been eleven rather than fifteen when it happened? If she hadn't turned and run away on her sixteenth birthday would it still have been a question of her agency?



Absent any other intelligence, it'd make a difference to my perception of the risk she poses, certainly. Both on the age point, and on the decision to get out; let's not forget that she never renounced that ideology before capture, even in adulthood and after losing two kids.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> It might affect the decision, insofar as it does to the 'conducive to the public good' part of the statutory test.
> 
> In any event, any critique if the law ought to consider such unintended consequences.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure you understand how the law works.



I'm not a legal expert by any means, all I've tried to point out on this thread is that courts interpret laws. But a UK court wouldn't consider a non-UK citizen who was not born in or resident to the UK as being relevant to a judgement about the public good would they?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> But you don't know if she chose to remain. And neither do I. This is just conjecture.
> 
> I might say - in fact I would say - that I doubt Daesh just let teenage brides leave if they get freaked out when they see atrocities and death, and that the idea that she freely chose to stay sounds a bit daft. But I don't know. Its just conjecture.



You added the word 'freely' to what I said.   But there's no evidence that she tried or even wanted to leave.  Its just not possible to say she's not a risk, is it?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not a legal expert by any means, all I've tried to point out on this thread is that courts interpret laws. But a UK court wouldn't consider a non-UK citizen who was not born in or resident to the UK as being relevant to a judgement about the public good would they?



The children were British citizens.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Absent any other intelligence, it'd make a difference to my perception of the risk she poses, certainly. Both on the age point, and on the decision to get out; let's not forget that she never renounced that ideology before capture, even in adulthood and after losing two kids.


I said if she didn't leave. 

Does the fact that this story starts with the sexual abuse of a child not affect your reading of it in any way?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

So the precedent had been established. Could be fun for many with effective dual citizenship. Nice way for a country to wash its hands and push responsibility onto someone else. I don’t give a shut either way about begun but this is abhorrent


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> You added the word 'freely' to what I said.   But there's no evidence that she tried or even wanted to leave.  Its just not possible to say she's not a risk, is it?



Again, read my point. I said that she might be a risk. I was objecting to you saying you knew she was a risk and claiming that this conjecture was fact.

E2A: you have no evidence that she didn't try to leave either.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> I said if she didn't leave.
> 
> Does the fact that this story starts with the sexual abuse of a child not affect your reading of it in any way?



Sorry, I misread your post. 

Of course it's relevant. But, taken in the round with the other facts we know, I don't know how anyone could seriously suggest she doesn't pose a risk (and they're may be more intelligence that we don't know).


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I said that she might be a risk. I was objecting to you saying you knew she was a risk and claiming that this conjecture was fact.



Risk is about uncertainty.  If something *might be* a risk, it *is* a risk (until it's excluded).  If she might commit an atrocity in the uk, then she is a risk.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

fuck it


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Sorry, I misread your post.
> 
> Of course it's relevant. But, taken in the round with the other facts we know, I don't know how anyone could seriously suggest she doesn't pose a risk (and they're may be more intelligence that we don't know).


I'm saying that celebrating and defending the racist British state's role in the eventual fate of a groomed and abused child is lacking morality. Tears and sadness are the appropriate response to the story not showboating your way over a flood of implicit racism and sexism.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm saying that celebrating and defending the racist British state's role in the eventual fate of a groomed and abused child is lacking morality. Tears and sadness are the appropriate response to the story not showboating your way over a flood of implicit racism and sexism.



I'm not doing that, though.  I've said previously that this wasn't my preferred outcome, and criticised the government's actions (see below).  (That's not altered by me pointing out that much of the criticism is factually and legally weak.)



Athos said:


> I said from the outset I'd have preferred if she'd not been stripped of her British nationality, and repeatedly said that decision can be criticised/should be challenged on a number of bases.  And I've said that (like you) I'd have preferred her to have been tried locally.





Athos said:


> I'm quite happy to criticise the government for acting outside this law, but that's different from criticising this law on the basis that it allows them to strip sole nationality - something it explicitly forbids.





Athos said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think it's a shit law that's been badly used.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> The point is that if you choose to join and remain a member of such an organisation in the full knowledge of its horrors, its hard to say that you don't present some level of risk.  Albeit I accept that, without being party to the intelligence neither of us know the full extent of that risk. Such that the idea that she isn't a risk is a really poor basis for criticising the decision.  I've criticised the law, but this is a weak ground on which do so, as are some of the other challenges people have raised on this thread e.g. those based on a misunderstanding of Bangladeshi law.



Bollocks. Arguments have been made by me and others that the idea that Begum's status should depend on a correct interpretation of Bangladeshi law is itself wrong. And discriminatory. I don't know what arguments Begum's lawyers made, but this seems a clear-cut case of indirect racial discrimination to me. You don't agree? Fine. But don't pretend your disagreement is due to some superior understanding of law.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 26, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> I'm a dual national and while I have no immediate plans to fight overseas to establish an Islamic caliphate, I definitely feel like this decision has downgraded my citizenship.



Works both ways though, I am only British and am therefore denied the opportunities that Spymaster has with his dual nationality in regards to access to the EU.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bollocks. Arguments have been made by me an others that the idea that Begum's status should depend on a correct interpretation of Bangladeshi law is itself wrong. And discriminatory. I don't know what arguments Begum's lawyers made, but this seems a clear-cut case of indirect racial discrimination to me. You don't agree? Fine. But don't pretend your disagreement is due to some superior understanding of law.



Lol, clear-cut to you, but not me or Begum's lawyers (who didn't pursue that line of argument), the tribunals, the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, or the Supreme Court.  None of which has a superior understanding of the law than you do. OK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Bollocks. Arguments have been made by me and others that the idea that Begum's status should depend on a correct interpretation of Bangladeshi law is itself wrong. And discriminatory. I don't know what arguments Begum's lawyers made, but this seems a clear-cut case of indirect racial discrimination to me. You don't agree? Fine. But don't pretend your disagreement is due to some superior understanding of law.


I think that Athos may well have a better understanding of the law than you, unless you've a history in the legal profession under your hat


----------



## Dr. Furface (Feb 26, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Works both ways though, I am only British and am therefore denied the opportunities that Spymaster has with his dual nationality in regards to access to the EU.


Says bloke who voted Leave


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Risk is about uncertainty.  If something *might be* a risk, it *is* a risk (until it'sexcluded).  If she might commit an atrocity in the uk, then she is a risk.



By that definition, everybody is a risk.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Risk is about uncertainty.  If something *might be* a risk, it *is* a risk (until it'sexcluded).  If she might commit an atrocity in the uk, then she is a risk.


You've committed some atrocities on this bulletin board tbf.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've committed some atrocities on this bulletin board tbf.




True enough.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 26, 2021)

Dr. Furface said:


> Says bloke who voted Leave



Yep, sacrificed my chance of taking a zero-hours, minimum wage job at McDonald’s in Vilnius for the greater good of the country.  🥇


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> By that definition, everybody is a risk.



That's true; it's a question of extent.  That, coupled with the fact we're not party to any intelligence, is why arguing against the government on the basis that she poses little risk is a complete dead end.

A better challenge now (maybe in the European Court, based on Article 6 of the ECHR - the right to a fair trial, albeit certain immigration-type matters are excluded) would be based on the SC's decision that the fact she can't have a fair hearing from outside the jurisdiction isn't a reason to allow her in; the suggestion that it simply means the hearing can't take place now.  There's a long established provoke that justice delayed is justice denied (made more acute by the circulated in which she kept in the meantime).


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> That's true; it's a question of extent.  That, coupled with the fact we're not party to any intelligence, is why arguing against the government on the basis that she poses little risk is a complete dead end.



I didn't say that I can argue that she poses little risk. I merely said that your assertion that you could know that she poses a significant risk was conjecture.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Dr. Furface said:


> Says bloke who voted Leave



So glad you've brought up Brexit, I was worried this thread wasn't boring enough.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> You have been part of the group of posters talking about her breeding?



I don't think he has. 

Can you quote _any_ poster on this thread talking about her breeding, for that matter?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I didn't say that I can argue that she poses little risk. I merely said that your assertion that you could know that she poses a significant risk was conjecture.



Without getting epistemological, on the facts I know, I can conclude that she poses a significant risk (albeit I can't know that risk will manifest).  And it seems like you accept you can't argue she doesn't pose such a risk.  Which is why the risk argument is a moot point insofar as criticising this decision.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I don't think he has.
> 
> Can you quote _any_ poster on this thread talking about her breeding, for that matter?



Keep up, conjecture is fact and the only reason you're not an ISIS bride is because no one asked you to be. 

Its all on the thread if anyone cares to check.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Without getting epistemological, on the facts I know, I can conclude that she poses a significant risk (albeit I can't know that risk will manifest).  And it seems like you accept you can't argue she doesn't pose such a risk.  Which is why the risk argument is a moot point insofar as criticising this decision.



But thats just a semantic way for you to claim that she poses a significant risk, and if you can do that then I can claim that Spymaster poses a significant risk as well. I might feel like saying it but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny its just armchair psychology and conjecture.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> But thats just a semantic way for you to claim that she poses a significant risk, and if you can do that then I can claim that Spymaster poses a significant risk as well. I might feel like saying it but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny its just armchair psychology and conjecture.


Of course,  you can claim what you like. And others can come to their own conclusion as to whether or not he represents the same threat as to someone who joined (and, as far as we know, never renounced) a murderous gang of murderers and rapists.  None of us can 'know' what Spy or Begum will do, but we can make assessments based on the facts that are known to us. The idea that such fact-based risk assessment can/should be dismissed as conjecture is ridiculous.  And it's a complete dead end as a basis for criticising the outcome in this case (not least of all because we don't have all the facts).


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> I'm a dual national and while I have no immediate plans to fight overseas to establish an Islamic caliphate, I definitely feel like this decision has downgraded my citizenship.


_Really?  _Come off it.

I asked way back in the thread somewhere if anyone could give a single example of anyone having their citizenship revoked under any circumstance whatsoever other than joining a terrorist rape cult. I'm still waiting.

I'm a dual national under similar circumstances to Begum (I didn't know about it until I made enquiries). It brings certain advantages but also the drawback that I could lose my British citizenship if I did something extraordinarily evil. In fact, if I encouraged the mass murder of a state's citizens and agents and they were able to, I'd fully expect them to tell me to fuck right off.

It doesn't bother me one jot.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> _Really?  _Come off it.
> 
> I asked way back in the thread somewhere if anyone could give a single example of anyone having their citizenship revoked under any circumstance whatsoever other than joining a terrorist rape cult. I'm still waiting.
> 
> ...


Plus you (or Yossarian ) could renounce the other citizenship if you wanted to, which would mean you couldn't be stripped of your British citizenship.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Plus you (or Yossarian ) could renounce the other citizenship if you wanted to, which would mean you couldn't be stripped of your British citizenship.


You can't renounce something you don't know about.

And in the case of Begum, you're talking about a 15-year-old at the time she left the UK, so you're asking a 15-year-old to have been familiar with Bangladeshi law and renounced her claim on citizenship of a country she's never been to. Is it reasonable in any way to treat her differently due to her not having renounced a dual citizenship she wasn't even aware of? You seem to think 'yes'. I think a firm 'no'.

And that's before we even consider the fact that Bangladesh has denied that she has a right to citizenship, so this ruling has left her stateless, something that is illegal in international law. This is a grubby ruling.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Plus you (or @Yossarian ) could renounce the other citizenship if you wanted to


In order to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship she would have to have a passport to renounce; it's part of the process. The whole process (of getting a passport in order to renounce citizenship) would require funds and access to low level legal advice of some sort. It's not really realistic is it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Of course,  you can claim what you like. And others can come to their own conclusion as to whether or not he represents the same threat as to someone who joined (and, as far as we know, never renounced) a murderous gang of murderers and rapists.  None of us can 'know' what Spy or Begum will do, but we can make assessments based on the facts that are known to us. The idea that such fact-based risk assessment can/should be dismissed as conjecture is ridiculous.  And it's a complete dead end as a basis for criticising the outcome in this case (not least of all because we don't have all the facts).



All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that there is a difference between saying that we know someone may pose a risk and that we know someone definitely does pose a risk. And if you try to claim that you can know someone poses a risk based on limited knowledge of them, the circumstances around them and what their motivations are then you are also claiming that we can all justifiably argue that we know quite a large number of people pose a risk.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> In order to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship she would have to have a passport to renounce; it's part of the process. The whole process (of getting a passport in order to renounce citizenship) would require funds and access to low level legal advice of some sort. It's not really realistic is it.


First and foremost, she'd need to have known about the citizenship in the first place.

How many British teenagers with a Bangladeshi parent know that they are automatically Bangladeshi citizens? I'd bet that most don't have any idea.

There's more than a whiff of racism around this. If one of her parents had been white British and she'd had a non-Bangladeshi name, I'll bet this wouldn't have happened, even though the same argument could have been made.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You can't renounce something you don't know about.
> 
> And in the case of Begum, you're talking about a 15-year-old at the time she left the UK, so you're asking a 15-year-old to have been familiar with Bangladeshi law and renounced her claim on citizenship of a country she's never been to. Is it reasonable in any way to treat her differently due to her not having renounced a dual citizenship she wasn't even aware of? You seem to think 'yes'. I think a firm 'no'.
> 
> And that's before we even consider the fact that Bangladesh has denied that she has a right to citizenship, so this ruling has left her stateless, something that is illegal in international law.



Spy and Yoss do know about it. 

I'm not defending that law, it's application in this case, or the outcome (from a legal perspective, I have very little sympathy for her, and think it's probably a good thing she's not in the UK, because of the risk); I've been critical of that.  My point is that many of the bases of criticism are unfounded. To me, the legitimate criticisms would be:

With regard to this law generally: The policy argument against two-tier citizenship, because of the social impact.  Though I recognise that, in practice, the people significantly impacted appear to be the authors of their own misfortune. 

With regard to the legal outcome of this case:  The fact that she'll be denied a timely hearing. Though I recognise the tension between two goods - that right, and public safety.  And, without the intelligence I can't be sure they're got the balance right in this case.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> In order to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship she would have to have a passport to renounce; it's part of the process. The whole process (of getting a passport in order to renounce citizenship) would require funds and access to low level legal advice of some sort. It's not really realistic is it.



I'm not sure that, under Bangladeshi law,  you'd need a passport to renounce citizenship. Do you have a reference for that, please?


----------



## strung out (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure that, under Bangladeshi law,  you'd need a passport to renounce citizenship. Do you have a reference for that, please?



*Requirements for Renunciation of Bangladesh nationality*

The following documents are required for renunciation (Cancellation) of Bangladesh nationality and obtain certificate of renunciation from the Embassy:


Filled-in application form *(02 copies)* for renunciation of Bangladesh nationality
Original Bangladesh passport
Photocopy of Bangladesh passport (hand written 1-5 pages, MRP 1-2 pages)
Certificate from the foreign nationality 
From here: Requirements for Renunciation | Embassy of Bangladesh, Berlin


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If one of her parents had been white British and she'd had a non-Bangladeshi name, I'll bet this wouldn't have happened, even though the same argument could have been made.



I'm afraid you're just wrong about that.   As already pointed out on this thread, it happened to a white boy with two white patents and a non-Bangladeshi name, who was a dual UK/Canadian citizen.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> First and foremost, she'd need to have known about the citizenship in the first place.
> 
> How many British teenagers with a Bangladeshi parent know that they are automatically Bangladeshi citizens? I'd bet that most don't have any idea.


Why not? I'm pretty sure the topic of potential citizenships comes up occasionally in households of people of multiple nationalities. It does in mine, why would they be any different? My dual-heritage five year old has already asked rough questions about her passport and what nationality she is. Not quite that legal or specific but she is only five.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm afraid you're just wrong about that.   As already pointed out on this thread, it happened to a white boy with two white patents and a non-Bangladeshi name, who was a dual UK/Canadian citizen.


He was a genuine soldier though. What if it was a white fifteen year old girl who'd been groomed, abused and lured abroad. Do you think the reaction of the press would have been the same?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Why not? I'm pretty sure the topic of potential citizenships comes up occasionally in households of people of multiple nationalities. It does in mine, why would they be any different? My dual-heritage five year old has already asked rough questions about her passport and what nationality she is. Not quite that legal or specific but she is only five.


iirc Begum's parents didn't know.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

strung out said:


> *Requirements for Renunciation of Bangladesh nationality*
> 
> The following documents are required for renunciation (Cancellation) of Bangladesh nationality and obtain certificate of renunciation from the Embassy:
> 
> ...



Thanks. That seems directly contradictory to what's here:  Refworld | Bangladesh: Whether an individual who has renounced citizenship of Bangladesh by acquiring citizenship in Singapore is able to reclaim citizenship; the requirements and procedures for reacquiring citizenship

Which says "In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Canadian high commission in Dhaka stated that Bangladeshis who are applying for citizenship in a country that does not accept dual citizenship can obtain a renunciation certificate from the Ministry of Home Affairs or from a Bangladeshi embassy/high commission abroad (Canada 10 Jan. 2012). The official added that a person seeking to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship needs only to write a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs indicating his or her intention and a certificate will be issued (ibid.)."

If I've got time, I'll look at the
Bangladeshi statute.


----------



## Buddy Bradley (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> He was a genuine soldier though. What if it was a white fifteen year old girl who'd been groomed, abused and lured abroad. Do you think the reaction of the press would have been the same?


Depends, is she slim and pretty?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> The children were British citizens.



Fair enough that is relevant so what you're saying is by their actions the govt potentially contributed to the death of a British citizen? In which case yeah I don't dispute that.


----------



## cyril_smear (Feb 26, 2021)

What would happen if she somehow were able to sneak in to the country? Obviously a yoi, but after thst?


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Thanks. That seems directly contradictory to what's here:  Refworld | Bangladesh: Whether an individual who has renounced citizenship of Bangladesh by acquiring citizenship in Singapore is able to reclaim citizenship; the requirements and procedures for reacquiring citizenship
> 
> Which says "In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Canadian high commission in Dhaka stated that Bangladeshis who are applying for citizenship in a country that does not accept dual citizenship can obtain a renunciation certificate from the Ministry of Home Affairs or from a Bangladeshi embassy/high commission abroad (Canada 10 Jan. 2012). The official added that a person seeking to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship needs only to write a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs indicating his or her intention and a certificate will be issued (ibid.)."
> 
> ...


Nothing written there suggests that someone who isn't a citizen already is able to renounce it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

It misses the point to think that this is to do with the niceties of Bangladeshi law anyway. It's to do with the equitable, non-discriminatory treatment of people under British law. A very simple declaration that theoretical dual citizenship doesn't count until it has been actively sought out by the person concerned. Until then it should be considered 'dormant' or whatever legal word you might want to use. People can't be expected to know the law of every country in the world.


----------



## strung out (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Thanks. That seems directly contradictory to what's here:  Refworld | Bangladesh: Whether an individual who has renounced citizenship of Bangladesh by acquiring citizenship in Singapore is able to reclaim citizenship; the requirements and procedures for reacquiring citizenship
> 
> Which says "In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Canadian high commission in Dhaka stated that Bangladeshis who are applying for citizenship in a country that does not accept dual citizenship can obtain a renunciation certificate from the Ministry of Home Affairs or from a Bangladeshi embassy/high commission abroad (Canada 10 Jan. 2012). The official added that a person seeking to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship needs only to write a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs indicating his or her intention and a certificate will be issued (ibid.)."
> 
> ...


I'm sure it would have been very simple for her to pop a letter in the post to the Bangladesh Ministry of Home Affairs from Syria/Iraq. Not sure what the postal service is like there though.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that there is a difference between saying that we know someone may pose a risk and that we know someone definitely does pose a risk. And if you try to claim that you can know someone poses a risk based on limited knowledge of them, the circumstances around them and what their motivations are then you are also claiming that we can all justifiably argue that we know quite a large number of people pose a risk.



I think you misunderstand risk.  Whilst any assessment should be based on known facts, risk it's inherently uncertain; if you *know* something will happen, that's a certainty, rather than a risk.  If you know someone *may* pose a risk, then there *is* a risk i.e. a chance that the harm will materialise. Knowing there's a risk is not the same as knowing it will manifest.  And, yes, that does mean we all present a risk; it's a matter of assessing the extent of it (based on what we do know, which, can almost never be the whole picture).


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

strung out said:


> I'm sure it would have been very simple for her to pop a letter in the post to the Bangladesh Ministry of Home Affairs from Syria/Iraq. Not sure what the postal service is like there though.



Then perhaps she shouldn't have chosen to travel to Syria (to join a murderous rape cult).


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Nothing written there suggests that someone who isn't a citizen already is able to renounce it.



She is a citizen already. Your confusing citizenship with having a passport.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think you misunderstand risk.  Whilst any assessment should be based on known facts, risk it's inherently uncertain; if you *know* something will happen, that's a certainty, rather than a risk.  If you know someone *may* pose a risk, then there *is* a risk i.e. a chance that the harm will materialise. Knowing there's a risk is not the same as knowing it will manifest.  And, yes, that does mean we all present a risk; it's a matter of assessing the extent of it (based on what we do know, which, can almost never be the whole picture).



Do you honestly think any of this has anything to do with risks of any kind?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> He was a genuine soldier though. What if it was a white fifteen year old girl who'd been groomed, abused and lured abroad. Do you think the reaction of the press would have been the same?



No, I don't.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

8ball said:


> Do you honestly think any of this has anything to do with risks of any kind?



I don't know the intelligence. I suspect it's a combination of risk and political expediency (as I've said before).


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then perhaps she shouldn't have chosen to travel to Syria (to join a murderous rape cult).


Would you say that Kayleigh Haywood who was groomed online, raped and murdered at the age of 15 shouldn't have chosen to meet up with rapists and murderers? Would you say the same about an eleven year old? At what age does coercion and exual abuse by adults completely stop being an extenuating factor?


----------



## strung out (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then perhaps she shouldn't have chosen to travel to Syria (to join a murderous rape cult).


If she hadn't worn those skimpy clothes, then she wouldn't have been targeted by her rapist.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then perhaps she shouldn't have chosen to travel to Syria (to join a murderous rape cult).



Is she a victim of said rape cult?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There's more than a whiff of racism around this. If one of her parents had been white British and she'd had a non-Bangladeshi name, I'll bet this wouldn't have happened, even though the same argument could have been made.


Huge conjecture and probably bollocks, imo. I would expect the spooks to have pretty hefty files on everyone being held in the camps and a background check would be pretty high in the screening process. Suggesting they'd take a softer line on someone with a white parent sounds like fantasy to me.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is she a victim of said rape cult?


Possibly.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm afraid you're just wrong about that.   As already pointed out on this thread, it happened to a white boy with two white patents and a non-Bangladeshi name, who was a dual UK/Canadian citizen.


Oh yes, it did didn't it. Forgot about that.


----------



## maomao (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> She is a citizen already. Your confusing citizenship with having a passport.


Okay. Please outline the process (and cost) of renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship for a British person without a Bangladeshi passport.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> She is a citizen already. Your confusing citizenship with having a passport.


See this isn't really true. It's you, and the british government, latching on to some poor wording in Bangladeshi law.

If she hasn't sought out her passport by the time she's 21, she loses her citizenship, which is why the British govt was ruled not to be allowed to do this to some older Daesh men in a previous case. So she's not really a citizen at age 15. Not really. You can't be a full citizen of somewhere only for that citizenship to be lost when you hit a certain birthday. At very best, she had some kind of a provisional citizenship subject to confirmation by her/her parents (which didn't happen).

Hence my use of the word sophistry earlier.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Okay. Please outline the process (and cost) of renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship for a British person without a Bangladeshi passport.



I've got work this afternoon. But will look into when I get a chance.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Huge conjecture and probably bollocks, imo. I would expect the spooks to have pretty hefty files on everyone being held in the camps and a background check would be pretty high in the screening process. Suggesting they'd take a softer line on someone with a white parent sounds like fantasy to me.



I don't think that's unreasonable conjecture. I agree it's likely she would have been treated more leniently if she were white, especially if she had some nice respectable white middle class parents back home to go on telly and say that she was led astray by nasty brown men and that they just want their daughter back.

It's not a fantasy at all to say that the state treats white people and black people differently is it? We know the state does this. And you're probably capable of acknowledging that if it comes up in another context. But you can't here because it detracts from your obsession with this girl you've never met. Are you lieing to us or yourself?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Would you say that Kayleigh Haywood who was groomed online, raped and murdered at the age of 15 shouldn't have chosen to meet up with rapists and murderers? Would you say the same about an eleven year old? At what age does coercion and exual abuse by adults completely stop being an extenuating factor?


Think the thing is that this is something that was decided under immigration law, which doesn't require the application of principles of equity and reasonableness you would expect to see most of the time in English and Welsh courts. So, on the one hand, yes the decision goes completely against a normal sense of justice. On the other, it's not, as far as I understand, actually a perverse decision. It's just that immigration law is shit and we normally choose to look the other way.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See this isn't really true. It's you, and the british government, latching on to some poor wording in Bangladeshi law.



No they're not. Not at all.

It's a legal principle known as _Jus sanguinis_ which has been embraced by Bangladesh and incorporated into it's citizenship policy.

There are shitloads of states who practice it to varying degrees.

Stop making out this is some kind of mistake or loophole that's being exploited. It's not.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Okay. Please outline the process (and cost) of renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship for a British person without a Bangladeshi passport.


I'd be interested to know if anybody has ever done this. For starters, the Bangladeshi authorities have no record whatever of the people in question. They don't know you exist until you contact them. So you'd first have to prove who you are and that you indeed are entitled to citizenship, only to say 'oh and by the way I don't want it'.

Who would do that?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Stop making out this is some kind of mistake or *loophole that's being exploited*. It's not.


That is _exactly_ what it is.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Possibly.



Then don't you think your position of blaming her for losing her citizenship is a bit ewwww/uncomfortable? Given you acknowledge shes at least potentially a victim of rape and grooming.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

UKG using every trick in the book to avoid her getting back here as if this came to court in the UK, it would be an embarrassment for them. This has nothing to do with risk - unless you implicity trust the intelligence services assurances expressed in camera  -  this is about avoiding any kind of transparency. I dig that most gave a beef with her but the beef is no reason to give the UKG a bye on their behaviour


----------



## LDC (Feb 26, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> UKG using every trick in the book to avoid her getting back here as if this came to court in the UK, it would be an embarrassment for them. This has nothing to do with risk - unless you implicity trust the intelligence services assurances expressed in camera  -  this is about avoiding any kind of transparency. I dig that most gave a beef with her but the beef is no reason to give the UKG a bye on their behaviour



I'm unsure what you're suggesting why that might be, could you give us a run down why you think her being in court is something the government and intelligence services want to desperately avoid as it'd be an embarrassment for them?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> UKG using every trick in the book to avoid her getting back here as if this came to court in the UK, it would be an embarrassment for them. This has nothing to do with risk - unless you implicity trust the intelligence services assurances expressed in camera  -  this is about avoiding any kind of transparency. I dig that most gave a beef with her but the beef is no reason to give the UKG a bye on their behaviour


The Supreme Court disgrees with you.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

This place has changed. I might Fuck off to mumsnet


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The Supreme Court disgrees with you.


Yes, the Supreme Court has made a grubby decision.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See this isn't really true. It's you, and the british government, latching on to some poor wording in Bangladeshi law.
> 
> If she hasn't sought out her passport by the time she's 21, she loses her citizenship, which is why the British govt was ruled not to be allowed to do this to some older Daesh men in a previous case. So she's not really a citizen at age 15. Not really. You can't be a full citizen of somewhere only for that citizenship to be lost when you hit a certain birthday. At very best, she had some kind of a provisional citizenship subject to confirmation by her/her parents (which didn't happen).
> 
> Hence my use of the word sophistry earlier.


That might be what you think the law should be (and there's probably some merit in that).  But, rightly or wrongly, it's not what it is.  Under Bangladeshi law she is a citizen; it's not even poorly-worded, or at all ambiguous, either.  There's no sophistry; her _de jure_ citizenship of Bangladesh is a fact in the eyes of the UK courts.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

maomao said:


> Would you say that Kayleigh Haywood who was groomed online, raped and murdered at the age of 15 shouldn't have chosen to meet up with rapists and murderers? Would you say the same about an eleven year old? At what age does coercion and exual abuse by adults completely stop being an extenuating factor?



I don't think it ceases to be a factor; it should be weighed with all the known facts, in order to assess risk.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Give us a run down why you think her being in court is something the government and intelligence services want to desperately avoid as it'd be an embarrassment for them?



their ploy to circumvent a supposed fair trial Everything else is chaff.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes, the Supreme Court has made a grubby decision.


They are the supreme arbiters of _the law_ and they've made the correct decision according _to the law. _


----------



## LDC (Feb 26, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> their ploy to circumvent a supposed fair trial Everything else is chaff.



Cheers, just wasn't quite sure what you were getting at.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

strung out said:


> If she hadn't worn those skimpy clothes, then she wouldn't have been targeted by her rapist.


People have a right to wear a mini skirt; they don't have a right to join a group that keeps slaves, tortures and beheads people, and weaponises mass rape.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Cheers, just wasn't quite sure what you were getting at.



NP. I don’t give a rats egg about her let’s be clear


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> They are the supreme arbiters of _the law_ and they've made the correct decision according _to the law. _


Is this a religious thing, like Papal infallability?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Then don't you think your position of blaming her for losing her citizenship is a bit ewwww/uncomfortable? Given you acknowledge shes at least potentially a victim of rape and grooming.


No, I think victims of one crime can be culpable of others (albeit that victimhood can be mitigation).


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The Supreme Court disgrees with you.



On the basis of a secret dossier no doubt. The intelligence services interprets and presents information and proffers an opinion. It’s not objective


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

It’s a lovely day outside tho.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Is this a religious thing, like Papal infallability?


As far as interpreting the law is concerned, it's not far off, tbh.

They've reached the same conclusion that some on here have been arguing since the thread began.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> As far as interpreting the law is concerned, it's not far off, tbh.
> 
> They've reached the same conclusion that some on here have been arguing since the thread began.



Bootlicker.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, I think victims of one crime can be culpable of others (albeit that victimhood can be mitigation).



And thats why I don't like your posts.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Bootlicker.


Hubcap polisher


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> .....This is a grubby ruling.



War is always grubby and horrid in its actuality, which is why it should be avoided whenever possible.

She chose to go to war and lost.The result is never going to be anything other than grubby.


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> All I'm trying to get you to acknowledge is that there is a difference between saying that we know someone may pose a risk and that we know someone definitely does pose a risk. And if you try to claim that you can know someone poses a risk based on limited knowledge of them, the circumstances around them and what their motivations are then you are also claiming that we can all justifiably argue that we know quite a large number of people pose a risk.


The whole point of ‘risk’ is uncertainty- it’s in the definition:  uncertainty x negative consequence. If HMG knew for certain what she would do then that would be an issue.


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> ...This has nothing to do with risk ...



And you are basing this on what evidence base?

Are you going to knock on the door of the partners of the two gay men, or the Jewish woman she kills before getting overpowered when she decides her imaginary friend in the sky wants her to get stabby outside the gay club or synagogue?
Asking for a friend.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> And you are basing this on what evidence base?
> 
> Are you going to knock on the door of the partners of the two gay men, or the Jewish woman she kills before getting overpowered when she decides her imaginary friend in the sky wants her to get stabby outside the gay club or synagogue?
> Asking for a friend.



What evidence have you to base this dark fantasy on?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> The whole point of ‘risk’ is uncertainty- it’s in the definition:  uncertainty x negative consequence. If HMG knew for certain what she would do then that would be an issue.



Yes, which is why I've taken issue with his _certainty. _


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> What evidence have you to base this dark fantasy on?











						Fishmongers' Hall attack - BBC News
					

All the latest content about Fishmongers' Hall attack from the BBC.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				












						Manchester Arena bombing - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				












						LGBTQ+ community mourns "proud gay men" killed in Reading terror attack
					

On 20 June, David Wails, James Furlong and Joe Ritchie-Bennett were stabbed to death by a lone attacker at Reading's Forbury Gardens.




					www.gaytimes.co.uk
				




Sorry, not a ‘dark fantasy’ (which is incredibly insulting to those who’s lives have been taken or blighted by the way, people who’s lives and freedom also mattered) .

Repeats of which I’d like to minimise.

So again, what is the evidence base that you are using to support  your statement that this damaged person presents no risk to other people?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> And thats why I don't like your posts.



What don't you like?  Nuance?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

if a government can get security services falsely nodding towards the invasion of Iraq then it might not take much arm bending to ensure a favourable return on the risk assessment of what appears to be a pretty thick woman far away. She might however be a coiled spring of terrorism I concur. I am sorry but the performance of UKG throughout this whole affair isn’t one of legal engagement and responsibility - do you trust UKG on this ?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

I wish she would just Fuck off tbf.I hate coming up with opinions on here that come across as trolling


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> if a government can get security services falsely nodding towards the invasion of Iraq then it might not take much arm bending to ensure a favourable return on the risk assessment of what appears to be a pretty thick woman far away. She might however be a coiled spring of terrorism I concur. I am sorry but the performance of UKG throughout this whole affair isn’t one of legal engagement and responsibility - do you trust UKG on this ?


Of course not.  She may well be the victim of 'sexed up' intelligence.

But, based on what we do know, I think it more likely than not that she poses a significant risk (and one that would be hard to mitigate).

And it's hardly surprising that any intelligence can't be aired publicly, since that could reveal sensitive techniques, give away telephone interception, or even expose an agent.

I still think she should have been tried and punished locally, where her group committed its atrocious crimes against humanity.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

Kinda agree with the last point - she should face trial somewhere


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

It's not about what Begum does or doesn't deserve for her actions, imo. At its root, it's about what those who defeated Daesh now do with the thousands and thousands of people who had moved to live under ISIS. The UK's handwashing attitude doesn't help (not just the UK, has to be said). 

And we shouldn't underestimate the power in the camps that internal ISIS enforcers wield. Getting any kind of a meaningful, uncoerced opinion out of Begum while she still has to go back to live in a camp is simply impossible.

This is a good article detailing many of the issues to do with repatriation. Horrific reading how children were used. Not just teenagers, but young children coopted into the killing.

PERSPECTIVE: Can We Repatriate the ISIS Children? – Homeland Security Today

I agree with its conclusion wrt the treatment of Begum and the motivation behind her treatment.



> Shamima Begum’s case has been fraught with political indications. From the outset, Ms. Begum was judged far more harshly by the British public than women of European descent who also joined ISIS, with her photo even being used as a target at a shooting range. Her citizenship was stripped, and the UK government claimed that they were not willing to risk Britons’ lives to repatriate her baby, who later died. Ms. Begum’s family lawyer, the first author, and many others doubted the sincerity of this statement, volunteering to go to Syria themselves and claiming that it was not too dangerous to rescue a child. If governments were willing to send troops to save a journalist captured by ISIS, surely, they claimed, the government could send troops or officials into SDF camps to retrieve children. Shortly thereafter, the UK repatriated a group of orphaned children, indicating that they were willing to save those who did not garner such a harsh public reaction.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> Kinda agree with the last point - she should face trial somewhere


Possibly those they were committed against - rather than the liberal-imperialist's demanding she only face british justice because she's british.

That camp where ISIS women now run? Is there an assumption she is against them? _Based on what? _Last we heard she doubled down on supporting ISIS. Maybe, again, it's _because she's british. _Ugh.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 26, 2021)

Racist soppy liberalism.

(edit: Yeah that'll be useful to post)


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> if a government can get security services falsely nodding towards the invasion of Iraq then it might not take much arm bending to ensure a favourable return on the risk assessment of what appears to be a pretty thick woman far away. She might however be a coiled spring of terrorism I concur. I am sorry but the performance of UKG throughout this whole affair isn’t one of legal engagement and responsibility - do you trust UKG on this ?


I don’t. But I trust her even less. This isn’t about the balance of reasonable doubt and open evidence used in our, laughably called criminal‘ justice’ system. It’s about someone who chose to go and fight in a war.  Someone who is now quite likely to be even more fucked up than she was when she was engaged in the active support of beheadings of unarmed prisoners  and the subjugation into sexual slavery of  other women and children for ideological and religious reasons. Someone I’d rather not have around people I care about in a place you can pop into Asda , buy a couple of carving knives and get stabby till the ARVs ( or hero members of the public)  rock up. It’s not really about ethics.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 26, 2021)

butchersapron said:


> Racist soppy liberalism.
> 
> (edit: Yeah that'll be useful to post)


 
Cheers for that


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> I don’t. But I trust her even less. This isn’t about the balance of reasonable doubt and open evidence used in our, laughably called criminal‘ justice’ system. It’s about someone who chose to go and fight in a war.  Someone who is now quite likely to be even more fucked up than she was when she was engaged in the active support of beheadings of unarmed prisoners  and the subjugation into sexual slavery of  other women and children for ideological and religious reasons. Someone I’d rather not have around people I care about in a place you can pop into Asda , buy a couple of carving knives and get stabby till the ARVs ( or hero members of the public)  rock up. It’s not really about ethics.


So she's so dangerous she can't be let back into the country to be held in prison while her case is heard in a court, which would almost certainly be a formality before she was returned to whence she came. I'm not sure from where you derive this imaginary situation where she's free to bowl about the country slitting throats and planting bombs. E2A not even sure she'd need to come back to blighty, some sort of fudge where she was held on the British base on Cyprus while engaging with a court remotely ought to meet what the sc suggested about a possible appeal


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> So she's so dangerous she can't be let back into the country to be held in prison while her case is heard in a court, which would almost certainly be a formality before she was returned to whence she came. I'm not sure from where you derive this imaginary situation where she's free to bowl about the country slitting throats and planting bombs. E2A not even sure she'd need to come back to blighty, some sort of fudge where she was held on the British base on Cyprus while engaging with a court remotely ought to meet what the sc suggested about a possible appeal


So why bother ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

A380 said:


> So why bother ?


It's what we do here. The minute we stop bothering the entire edifice will collapse


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> So she's so dangerous she can't be let back into the country to be held in prison while her case is heard in a court, which would almost certainly be a formality before she was returned to whence she came. I'm not sure from where you derive this imaginary situation where she's free to bowl about the country slitting throats and planting bombs. E2A not even sure she'd need to come back to blighty, some sort of fudge where she was held on the British base on Cyprus while engaging with a court remotely ought to meet what the sc suggested about a possible appeal


Once she was in the UK there's no way she'd get sent back to the camp, even if she lost her appeal against the Home Secretary's decision.  And it's no formality that she'd be held in custody awaiting the outcome.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 26, 2021)

See, I said we should have followed the French example...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Once she was in the UK there's no way she'd get sent back to the camp, even if she lost her appeal against the Home Secretary's decision.  And it's no formality that she'd be held in custody awaiting the outcome.


Yeh which is why I think an extraterritorial solution in eg cyprus might be a better idea


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> It's what we do here. The minute we stop bothering the entire edifice will collapse


Isn't that what you have been working towards all this time?


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh which is why I think an extraterritorial solution in eg cyprus might be a better idea



Doesn't solve the problem that'd it'd be hard to send her back there (or anywhere else) when she's out.  But it'd still be better for her to be tried where she is.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> See, I said we should have followed the French example...


Tbh sooner or later people like you will have to go out and do the job all over again because while daesh have been dispersed they haven't been destroyed. And I wouldn't be surprised if we hear of them rising again.


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> See, I said we should have followed the French example...


Pour encourager les autres...


----------



## kebabking (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh which is why I think an extraterritorial solution in eg cyprus might be a better idea



Even then she's on UK territory - as she would be on a ship, or in an aircraft, or in a Hilux in Syria with some men with big mustaches and North Face duvet jackets.

Once we touch her, she belongs to us - hence the desire to not touch her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Doesn't solve the problem that'd it'd be hard to send her back there (or anywhere else) when she's out.  But it'd still be better for her to be tried where she is.


Is there any desire to deal with this issue - not just sb but everyone in the camps? I don't see that doing nothing is a great plan


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Is there any desire to deal with this issue - not just sb but everyone in the camps? I don't see that doing nothing is a great plan


It's not any kind of plan, let alone a great one.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Is there any desire to deal with this issue - not just sb but everyone in the camps? I don't see that doing nothing is a great plan



I don't think anyone thinks that doing nothing is a great plan - and as you point out, at some stage it will bite us in the arse - it's just any version of 'anything' is also pretty shit, and will also inevitably bite us in the arse.


----------



## A380 (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Once she was in the UK there's no way she'd get sent back to the camp, even if she lost her appeal against the Home Secretary's decision.  And it's no formality that she'd be held in custody awaiting the outcome.


This, once here, or in UK custody she will end up staying here. God knows what serious offences you could get home, seeing as its quite hard to take statements  in war zones. I'd guess you might get some lower end offences to stick, three years (two of which she'd have done on remand). Then she is never going back, so how much will it cost to keep people safe.


----------



## LDC (Feb 26, 2021)

And I think what people are worried about is less her picking up a kitchen knife and chopping a head off (which I would say is probably unlikely, and also would solve the problem of what happens to her very quickly), and more her acting as some speaker or figurehead and a catalyst for others to do similar.

It doesn't take a massive stretch of the imagination to see her once back here and having served some short sentence (if any at all tbh) doing the rounds of events and speaking tours giving her version of the Caliphate and drumming up some support for it in some form. They'd be a few lefties and organisations that would fall over themselves to host her I think.

The argument that while she's there she's at least contained in some way is one I can see some people being very happy with when the alternatives of having her back here are considered.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> See, I said we should have followed the French example...



Paying Iraq to off them is a bit, well, French...the traditional British way would be to redraw the map so that she is currently inside Iraq and therefore in sight of the rope...


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And I think what people are worried about is less her picking up a kitchen knife and chopping a head off (which I would say is probably unlikely, and also would solve the problem of what happens to her very quickly), and more her acting as some speaker or figurehead and a catalyst for others to do similar.
> 
> It doesn't take a massive stretch of the imagination to see her once back here and having served some short sentence (if any at all tbh) doing the rounds of events and speaking tours giving her version of the Caliphate and drumming up some support for it in some form. They'd be a few lefties and organisations that would fall over themselves to host her I think.
> 
> The argument that while she's there she's at least contained in some way is one I can see some people being very happy with when the alternatives of having her back here are considered.


Yeh right. And how contained will she be when the camps empty? I'm surprised how many people think this - daesh - is all over when it clearly isn't. IS Winning Battle in Syria’s Displaced-Persons Camps


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> And I think what people are worried about is less her picking up a kitchen knife and chopping a head off (which I would say is probably unlikely, and also would solve the problem of what happens to her very quickly), and more her acting as some speaker or figurehead and a catalyst for others to do similar.
> 
> It doesn't take a massive stretch of the imagination to see her once back here and having served some short sentence (if any at all tbh) doing the rounds of events and speaking tours giving her version of the Caliphate and drumming up some support for it in some form. They'd be a few lefties and organisations that would fall over themselves to host her I think.
> 
> The argument that while she's there she's at least contained in some way is one I can see some people being very happy with when the alternatives of having her back here are considered.



People aren't genuinely worried about her, they just like the idea of turning a young woman into a scapegoat for the wars and the crimes of men.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 26, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh right. And how contained will she be when the camps empty? I'm surprised how many people think this - daesh - is all over when it clearly isn't. IS Winning Battle in Syria’s Displaced-Persons Camps



I think the problem is that because no one - outside of the DGSE - can find a good long term solution, what is being grasped are good short term solutions.

Right now, this week, her being in this camp is a good solution, and one of the better ones available. When the situation changes and this version of a good short term solution is no longer available, they will look for a different good, or at least not-as-bad-as-it-could-be short term solution.

No one, I promise you, thinks this is over - RAF Typhoons from Cyprus dropped several hundred grand in _reconstruction projects _onto some of our beared friends in Syria this week - it's just that it's simply being ignored by the media, and therefore politicians.


----------



## LDC (Feb 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> People aren't genuinely worried about her, they just like the idea of turning a young woman into a scapegoat for the wars and the crimes of men.



You really think that is all it's about?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 26, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I think the problem is that because no one - outside of the DGSE - can find a good long term solution, what is being grasped are good short term solutions.
> 
> Right now, this week, her being in this camp is a good solution, and one of the better ones available. When the situation changes and this version of a good short term solution is no longer available, they will look for a different good, or at least not-as-bad-as-it-could-be short term solution.
> 
> No one, I promise you, thinks this is over - RAF Typhoons from Cyprus dropped several hundred grand in _reconstruction projects _onto some of our beared friends in Syria this week - it's just that it's simply being ignored by the media, and therefore politicians.


I know it's something you're well aware of, I had in mind some of our less well informed colleagues here


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> You really think that is all it's about?



No. There's also racism involved.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 26, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> It doesn't take a massive stretch of the imagination to see her once back here and having served some short sentence (if any at all tbh) doing the rounds of events and speaking tours giving her version of the Caliphate and drumming up some support for it in some form. They'd be a few lefties and organisations that would fall over themselves to host her I think.



Err...it does take a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch of the imagination actually. I simply can't see this happening. '....drumming up support in some form'? Seriously?

Yes, in time people would for whatever reason be interested in her story, want to write about it, hear it, dramatise it even but that's because us humans are fucking nosey and there is a massive market for unpalatable tragic biographies, even when the main characters are dislikable. But you've made it sound like she'd be paraded around and would be actively promoting ISIS which is making all kinds of weird assumptions.

She'd have all kinds of restrictions imposed on her for a start I _can _imagine.

There will be loads of stories from people caught up in ISIS over the coming years. I just can't see how you've managed to see the shit heap her existence has been and is now and imagine she'd come back anything but broken tbh.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Err...it does take a streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetch of the imagination actually. I simply can't see this happening. '....drumming up support in some form'? Seriously?
> 
> Yes, in time people would for whatever reason be interested in her story, want to write about it, hear it, dramatise it even but that's because us humans are fucking nosey and there is a massive market for unpalatable tragic biographies, even when the main characters are dislikable. But you've made it sound like she'd be paraded around and would be actively promoting ISIS which is making all kinds of weird assumptions.
> 
> ...


Agree. It's quite mad that 'lefties' would be falling over themselves to host her. Don't get that idea at all. That would only happen, surely, if she were to completely renounce ISIS and everything she formerly stood for.


----------



## LDC (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agree. It's quite mad that 'lefties' would be falling over themselves to host her. Don't get that idea at all. That would only happen, surely, if she were to completely renounce ISIS and everything she formerly stood for.



Yeah, no parts of the left have any form for doing anything like that at all...

Anyway, all the arguments have been thrashed out on here over and over again, I suspect nobody is going to change their minds.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, no parts of the left have any form for doing anything like that at all...
> 
> Anyway, all the arguments have been thrashed out on here over and over again, I suspect nobody is going to change their minds.


Tbf your idea that she might be feted here by some on the left is a novel contribution.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agree. It's quite mad that 'lefties' would be falling over themselves to host her. Don't get that idea at all. That would only happen, surely, if she were to completely renounce ISIS and everything she formerly stood for.



Would you renounce ISIS if trapped a camp with thousands of them?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Would you renounce ISIS if trapped a camp with thousands of them?


I was referring to a suggestion of what might happen when she's back here, which would follow a prison sentence in any case. Iirc 4 or5 years would be likely.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Would you renounce ISIS if trapped a camp with thousands of them?



Would you if you remained ideologically committed to them?

We just don't know what she believes.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Would you if you remained ideologically committed to them?
> 
> We just don't know what she believes.



Then stop endlessly speculating about it


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Would you if you remained ideologically committed to them?
> 
> We just don't know what she believes.


We don't know for certain what anyone believes, only what they say, or are reported to have said.


----------



## alex_ (Feb 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> People aren't genuinely worried about her, they just like the idea of turning a young woman into a scapegoat for the wars and the crimes of men.



what is there to worry about - she is a thick as shit teenager, who if she were to come home will spend her entire life reporting to the police and being watched by the security services.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Then stop endlessly speculating about it



I'm not. I'm saying you can't deny there's a risk. And you've agreed with that.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> We don't know for certain what anyone believes, only what they say, or are reported to have said.



Quite, we can only judge them by what we know of them. In this case, that she joined a murderous gang of rapists and torturers.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not. I'm saying you can't deny there's a risk. And you've agreed with that.



Sigh. This is a long and pointless discussion which you want to have in order to avoid admitting that you don't know whether she poses a risk or not. I'm two drinks in and I bid you all a nice evening.


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sigh. This is a long and pointless discussion which you want to have in order to avoid admitting that you don't know whether she poses a risk or not. I'm two drinks in and I bid you all a nice evening.



Sigh.  I can't help it if your don't understand logic or uncertainty.

You've already conceded that she might be a risk i.e. that there's a risk she's a risk.  Which means there's a risk!

Enjoy your drinks.

Eta:  Think of it this way.  Condition A might be met; let's say there's a 50% chance it will.   And there's a chance that, if condition A is met, outcome X will occur; let's say 80%.  That means, as things stand,  there's a 40% chance that outcome X will occur.

That's not saying that either condition A will be met, or that, even if it is, outcome X will occur.  But as soon as you recognise the chance of condition A being met, you recognise a chance of outcome X.

Ignoring the figures (because we have insufficient data), let condition A be that she *might* be willing and able to commit a terrorist atrocity (which you've already conceded), and let outcome X be such an evert.  It inevitably follows that, if there's a risk she might be willing and able, there's a risk that such an event will happen.

For there to be a risk of X doesn't require a certainty that condition A will be met from the outset. I've not claimed otherwise; me saying there's a danger she might do something isn't me asserting that she definitely would!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sigh. This is a long and pointless discussion which you want to have in order to avoid admitting that you don't know whether she poses a risk or not. I'm two drinks in and I bid you all a nice evening.


I'm with Athos on this point. We're basically faced with a probability problem, one in which the chances of bad things happening are evaluated on the basis of incomplete knowledge. So the relevant knowledge we have is that she was at one time a fanatical ISIS supporter. Her particular position now means we shoudn't give weight to anything she says while she's in a camp surrounded by people who would kill her for making anti-ISIS statements, but if she were to return here, the fact that she was undoubtedly at one time a highly dangerous extremist would lead to an assessment that she's a significant risk. Quite rightly.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Feb 26, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm with Athos on this point. We're basically faced with a probability problem, one in which the chances of bad things happening are evaluated on the basis of incomplete knowledge. So the relevant knowledge we have is that she was at one time a fanatical ISIS supporter. Her particular position now means we shoudn't give weight to anything she says while she's in a camp surrounded by people who would kill her for making anti-ISIS statements, but if she were to return here, the fact that she was undoubtedly at one time a highly dangerous extremist would lead to an assessment that she's a significant risk. Quite rightly.



Are you sure cos this is the original claim: 



Athos said:


> I know she joined (and remained part of) a vile organisation she must have known was responsible for mass rape, enslavement, murder, and unspeakable cruelty. That, in itself, tells me she's dangerous.



Begum 'must' have known, therefore Athos knows that she is dangerous now. What Athos has done since has back peddle and argue he just said there was a possibility but his original claim was that it is possible for him to know she is dangerous now. Based on his assumption that she went there with full knowledge of what they were and his insistence that she willingly remained part of it. 

Which she might have. It's just no one on this thread knows that, whatever insight they may claim. 

Night all.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Feb 26, 2021)

I personally couldn't care less really whether she is allowed back here or not, sad maybe but true. Her presence in this country or not is a pretty marginal matter, imho. If she were allowed back in she would be monitored so heavily that she wouldn't be able to do any real damage even if she wanted to. It's all symbolic drama with no great significance. There are far more dangerous individuals living here already, some known to the security services, some not.
What is maybe of greater significance is how citizenship rights may be taken from other people in future for completely different reasons, using this as a precedent. (Apologies if other posters have already made this point)


----------



## Athos (Feb 26, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Are you sure cos this is the original claim:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know lightening is dangerous, but I don't know whether it will strike at a particular time and place. You seem to confuse the idea that there's a danger that something will happen with an assertion it definitely will.  The fact that she might have gone and remained willingly (which you've conceded) means there's a danger she remains radicalised. That doesn't require me to assume those things are definitely true, though. And it's not an assertion that she would definitely do anything.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 26, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I personally couldn't care less really whether she is allowed back here or not, sad maybe but true. Her presence in this country or not is a pretty marginal matter, imho. If she were allowed back in she would be monitored so heavily that she wouldn't be able to do any real damage even if she wanted to. It's all symbolic drama with no great significance. There are far more dangerous individuals living here already, some known to the security services, some not.
> What is maybe of greater significance is how citizenship rights may be taken from other people in future for completely different reasons, using this as a precedent. (Apologies if other posters have already made this point)



So long as you don't swan off to some conflict zone to join an apocalyptic racist cult that murders people for "religious" "reasons", then I reckon you'll be good.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 27, 2021)

one thing we can likely all agree on is that if she gets to the UK, its going to be difficult to move her on


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 27, 2021)

NoXion said:


> So long as you don't swan off to some conflict zone to join an apocalyptic racist cult that murders people for "religious" "reasons", then I reckon you'll be good.


Good thing that states never acquire a new power that's justified by the need to target one particular group, and then end up using that power against a wider and wider range of people over time, innit?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 27, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Good thing that states never acquire a new power that's justified by the need to target one particular group, and then end up using that power against a wider and wider range of people over time, innit?



It’s best we remove all those laws against murderers then. Just in case the government start to use them against non-murderers.


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 27, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It’s best we remove all those laws against murderers then. Just in case the government start to use them against non-murderers.


Tbf, if the UK government announced that they were suddenly going to stop dealing with murderers the way they had up until now, and announced that they were going to start declaring that everyone convicted of murder was no longer a British citizen, I'd think that would sound a bit dodgy as well.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Good thing that states never acquire a new power that's justified by the need to target one particular group, and then end up using that power against a wider and wider range of people over time, innit?


Not even sure they're really even justifying it. It's banditry, essentially, on a par with the time Brown invoked terrorism laws to try to freeze Icelandic bank funds. They know full well that this is a misuse of power. They don't care because they judge that it plays well to sections of the public/media that they want to play to.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Feb 27, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Tbf, if the UK government announced that they were suddenly going to stop dealing with murderers the way they had up until now, and announced that they were going to start declaring that everyone convicted of murder was no longer a British citizen, I'd think that would sound a bit dodgy as well.



Why?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 27, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why?


Arbitrary (ab)use of power isn't a good thing.


----------



## hitmouse (Feb 27, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why?


Because I don't think it'd be justified, and because the legal system already has a range of ways of dealing with people convicted of serious crimes that, while they may not be ideal, certainly seem better than just going "this person is no longer British and therefore not our problem." Do you think it _would_ be justified?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 27, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It’s best we remove all those laws against murderers then.



They have done just that with the new war crimes law. Sadly for Shamima Begum she's the wrong colour, sorry, the wrong _kind_ of war criminal.


----------



## Spanner (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> They have done just that with the new war crimes law. Sadly for Shamima Begum she's the wrong colour, sorry, the wrong _kind_ of war criminal.


She’s a terrorist


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 28, 2021)

Spanner said:


> She’s a terrorist



Or a victim.

What acts of terror did she cause, again?


----------



## Raheem (Feb 28, 2021)

Spanner said:


> She’s a terrorist


She's a drippy ISIS housewife.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

The whole situation is kind of sad.
I took a look at some of this stuff as part of  safeguarding/prevent training.
The thing that stuck out to me was everyone talking about their expectations and the success the girls had been having academically.
Now I don't know what really happened but to me I see a picture of teenagers who have parents who have come to britain looking for a fresh start  and are hoping their kids make it in this place*
I seem to remember that it was their parents hope for them to do science/maths A-Levels  and go on to a prestigious career.
I couldn't help but imagine if I had that pressure on me.  Not only that expectation but also  some other person telling them about this other lifestyle they could buy into.
One that was all about family and faith.  You can be happy with your new family.  You already have done enough.  We will accept you for who you are now.  Don't worry about all that study.

People don't think of themselves as being the villian. These kids (and as far as i'm aware they were children when they were groomed for this) brought into a lifestyle choice because it felt to them more appealing that living as a regular british citizen.
I don't see enough people asking why that is  or  how we can change that.
Are we saying no one can come back,  because we couldn't change their mind? What does that say about us?
Are we saying that the choice they made was so heinous that it impedes reintegration? Then what does that say about our duty of care as the initiating decision was made while under our care?
I'd also take a pinch of salt with any statements that have been made   if that person is currently living in an environment where a statement that attacks some elements of the local community may cause them harm.

While I don't want to say there should be no consequences I feel that if we can't even try to support a person who was indoctrinated as a child while under our care then i think we are not trying hard enough.

While justice often calls for punishment I would like to think that reform is an even greater part.

*I don't remember if all of the girls had immigrant/refugee parents but I think most did.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

Slight drunken rant forgive me if it is a bit overblown


----------



## CosmikRoger (Feb 28, 2021)

Loads of weaselly racism on this thread.


----------



## marshall (Feb 28, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Slight drunken rant forgive me if it is a bit overblown



Nah, personally thought it was a good post, well-said, chin-chin.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

CosmikRoger said:


> Loads of weaselly racism on this thread.


Yes, mostly in the form of tacitly lauding the superiority of 'British Justice', and the right of some to avoid being dealt with where they were captured. Though, strangely, I don't remember people clamoring for Gary Glitter's right to be tried in the UK.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

marshall said:


> Nah, personally thought it was a good post, well-said, chin-chin.


Thank you.  I often don't stick my oar in to much of this stuff but the mixture of having studied the case somewhat* and the dutch courage** given by the sauce made me open up.

* I really don't actually know enough to feel like I really understand what went on however when I tried to put my mindset into what that situation might of been like it made things scarily appealing. 
** Vergeef me voor de bewoordingen


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Or a victim.
> 
> What acts of terror did she cause, again?



Or both a victim and a perpetrator? I've no idea where or not it's true, but she's alleged to have been an enforcer in ISIL's 'morality police', to have stitched people into suicide vests, and to have been a recruiter for the organisation.  But, even if none of that's true, merely joining ISIL and caring out the role of the wife of a fighter assisted the organisation.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 28, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> The whole situation is kind of sad.
> I took a look at some of this stuff as part of  safeguarding/prevent training.
> The thing that stuck out to me was everyone talking about their expectations and the success the girls had been having academically.
> Now I don't know what really happened but to me I see a picture of teenagers who have parents who have come to britain looking for a fresh start  and are hoping their kids make it in this place*
> ...



There's plenty of people studying why young people join terrorist organisations. Or do you mean the media or people like us, posting on social media? The prevent training is surely based on some of that research.

I'm curious...do you recall anything about adolescence on your training? As distinct from earlier childhood. I don't recall anything about the specific vulnerabilities of adolescents on the prevent training I did. But I think one of the things that's interesting in your description is how adolescence is a difficult time (just look at what this case has generated as a symbol of this inbetween age) and I was thinking how appealing it might be to jump over the difficulties of adolescence, with its uncertainty and change and fear of failure, in favour of a life that seemed to offer premature adulthood  - marriage - and all the fantasies of what being an adult entails - power, control, freedom.

I think as adolescents are on the cusp of independence, it doesn't really aid our understanding to keep calling this young person or young people like her a child, even if a child under law. It might help us to understand if we consider why being on this cusp can be so difficult and marked by conflicts (emotional and social) and the strategies that some adolescents employ to bypass it, though I don't think we can eliminate all risk. I wonder when you say under our care - is there something specific you have in mind that you think might have prevented her taking the route she did?


----------



## LDC (Feb 28, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> There's plenty of people studying why young people join terrorist organisations. Or do you mean the media or people like us, posting on social media? The prevent training is surely based on some of that research.
> 
> I'm curious...do you recall anything about adolescence on your training? As distinct from earlier childhood. I don't recall anything about the specific vulnerabilities of adolescents on the prevent training I did. But I think one of the things that's interesting in your description is how adolescence is a difficult time (just look at what this case has generated as a symbol of this inbetween age) and I was thinking how appealing it might be to jump over the difficulties of adolescence, with its uncertainty and change and fear of failure, in favour of a life that seemed to offer premature adulthood  - marriage - and all the fantasies of what being an adult entails - power, control, freedom.
> 
> I think as adolescents are on the cusp of independence, it doesn't really aid our understanding to keep calling this young person or young people like her a child, even if a child under law. It might help us to understand if we consider why being on this cusp can be so difficult and marked by conflicts (emotional and social) and the strategies that some adolescents employ to bypass it, though I don't think we can eliminate all risk. I wonder when you say under our care - is there something specific you have in mind that you think might have prevented her taking the route she did?



The Prevent training I did recently (mandatory for NHS work, an online thing) talked about adolescents a fair bit, and interestingly far right extremism was talked about much, much more than anything else. Thought it was actually OK tbh.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> Or both a victim and a perpetrator? I've no idea where or not it's true, but she's alleged to have been an enforcer in ISIL's 'morality police', to have stitched people into suicide vests, and to have been a recruiter for the organisation.  But, even if none of that's true, merely joining ISIL and caring out the role of the wife of a fighter assisted the organisation.


I wouldn't doubt this as true but I would say if you were a person who felt like they had no agency this is the kind of stuff you would buy right into (if they felt they had agency i think we would be looking at a very different picture).
It also reminds me really heavily  of people who have brought into  other  cultish beliefs.  Think about all the stuff that jehovas witness or scientology do. 
In those cases I think most people talk about rescuing, deprogramming  and recovery. While there may be some cases of people going beyond the pale and where reintegration seems  nigh impossible in any of these cases  I'm not sure if this is the same.
Do we take a person like this in, provide them with their basic beesd and try to gain better understanding of where they are now and where they came form or  do we just say no?

What is the line between indoctrinated, complicit and active participant drawn?
Do we even bother to consider if there is a line?

I may be accused of mealy mouthed whataboutism but I do think we need to examine this to actually understand this. 
Re integrated extremists may allow us to understand what made them convert and what brought them back.
how are we meant to combat something about a movement unless we understand it.  Who can really say what a movement is unless they lived it. 
I think integration will work better than exclusion.  I may be proved wrong by the march of times but this is my current view point.


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 28, 2021)

marshall said:


> Nah, personally thought it was a good post, well-said, chin-chin.



Incidentally, chin chin is an informal term for penis, in Japanese


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Incidentally, chin chin is an informal term for penis, in Japanese


And it often reveals who's a dick elsewhere


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 28, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> The Prevent training I did recently (mandatory for NHS work, an online thing) talked about adolescents a fair bit, and interestingly far right extremism was talked about much, much more than anything else. Thought it was actually OK tbh.



Yes, far right extremism was talked about most in mine too. I don't recall there being much on adolescence as a distinct phase - do you remember how adolescence was itself was presented?


----------



## LDC (Feb 28, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> Yes, far right extremism was talked about most in mine too. I don't recall there being much on adolescence as a distinct phase - do you remember how adolescence was itself was presented?



No, sorry. Rushed through it to do the tick box test at the end.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.



I rather doubt anyone considers her _uniquely _dangerous, she has been stripped of citizenship simply because it's available as a tactic to use against her. In others it's not a mechanism that's been available, so hasn't been used.

Some of the others got a 500lb Paveway through the windscreen - had she been pinged and fallen within the ROE while someone was overhead I have no doubt she'd have ended her days similarly.

It's simply about bringing whatever weapon you have to bare when the enemy presents itself - Paveway or Brimstone was available when some of the others popped up, this is available when she (and others) popped up. For some, sadly, none of the above were available when they eventually got pinged...


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> There's plenty of people studying why young people join terrorist organisations. Or do you mean the media or people like us, posting on social media? The prevent training is surely based on some of that research.
> 
> I'm curious...do you recall anything about adolescence on your training? As distinct from earlier childhood. I don't recall anything about the specific vulnerabilities of adolescents on the prevent training I did. But I think one of the things that's interesting in your description is how adolescence is a difficult time (just look at what this case has generated as a symbol of this inbetween age) and I was thinking how appealing it might be to jump over the difficulties of adolescence, with its uncertainty and change and fear of failure, in favour of a life that seemed to offer premature adulthood  - marriage - and all the fantasies of what being an adult entails - power, control, freedom.
> 
> I think as adolescents are on the cusp of independence, it doesn't really aid our understanding to keep calling this young person or young people like her a child, even if a child under law. It might help us to understand if we consider why being on this cusp can be so difficult and marked by conflicts (emotional and social) and the strategies that some adolescents employ to bypass it, though I don't think we can eliminate all risk. I wonder when you say under our care - is there something specific you have in mind that you think might have prevented her taking the route she did?


I will try to address this point by point  but i'm up late/early so forgive me if I miss things. On the whole I think my safeguarding training has been decent.  but it's still tricky.

While I know plenty of people are probably studying this  as a member of staff that is requested to be aware of these thing  the training that we get is  perhaps a bit patchy
It's not that there isn't information available it's just  that people only have a limited head space so  most training only hits the high points and broad strokes.
Links to studies are probably made in most cases but can unfortunately be  only appear very small text at the bottom of each slide.

I don't remember anything specifically about adolescence but I stared on predominantly 25+  training but now mainly teach 14-19 year olds. After many years I really feel that anything under mid 20s has a good chance as being expert bad decision makers.
Older people have that too. Of course you do find on the odd occasion a teen wise before their years.

In my case I find that a lot of my students are vulnerable. They have not fit the traditional school model and are looking  for a new system to fit into.
When we are lucky that is college and a BTEC that leads to a level 2 or 3 qualification.  If though some one else was selling them a (plausible) more attractive reality I get why they would join.

For a lot of these younger people mainstream education has already failed them and the mainstream zeitgeist wants to make you believe that you are the one at fault. You are too dumb to meet our standards.

Is it that unrealistic to think that people who think they are at fault , or  are  afraid that the label may be able to search for another answer?

And if our government/society  are not meeting those needs  who so we think might do that?

I think your point about maturity and marriage is very relative. Marriage gives a socially appropriate framework to pin own hopes upon. When you disagree with that frame work there is a potential for a lot of kick back.

I call those people children not because I'm dismissing what maturity that they have  but to highlight how far they still have to go.

I consider duty of care from a broad governmental perspective not an individual one.

II don't know of a magic cure for these things. However if a government  can deny integration it should also  have considered the alternative paths.  I for one have not heard any good arguments why de-radicalisation and reintegration is impossible.
It is easy to villinise someone's actions  it is harder  to integrate them.

Again please forgive my rant.  I'm full three sheets to the  wind at the moment  so maybe talking shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I rather doubt anyone considers her _uniquely _dangerous, she has been stripped of citizenship simply because it's available as a tactic to use against her. In others it's not a mechanism that's been available, so hasn't been used.
> 
> Some of the others got a 500lb Paveway through the windscreen - had she been pinged and fallen within the ROE while someone was overhead I have no doubt she'd have ended her days similarly.
> 
> It's simply about bringing whatever weapon you have to bare when the enemy presents itself - Paveway or Brimstone was available when some of the others popped up, this is available when she (and others) popped up. For some, sadly, none of the above were available when they eventually got pinged...


yeh well there's the weapon of getting the people in the camps cases resolved locally which might seem the easiest option short of bombing the places.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Incidentally, chin chin is an informal term for penis, in Japanese



it is.  It along with manko are one of the few japanese words i've seen censored.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh well there's the weapon of getting the people in the camps cases resolved locally which might seem the easiest option short of bombing the places.



HMG's preferred outcome - well, barring a tragic outbreak of Cholera - unfortunately the local communities/groups have no more wish to have these people among them than we, and the Bangladeshis, do.

Hence the stalemate.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

kebabking said:


> HMG's preferred outcome - well, barring a tragic outbreak of Cholera - unfortunately the local communities/groups have no more wish to have these people among them than we, and the Bangladeshis, do.
> 
> Hence the stalemate.



Wishing doesn't enter into it. Begum is a British citizen and the British state should take responsibilty for her.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Are we saying no one can come back,  because we couldn't change their mind? What does that say about us?
> Are we saying that the choice they made was so heinous that it impedes reintegration? Then what does that say about our duty of care as the initiating decision was made while under our care?
> 
> While justice often calls for punishment I would like to think that reform is an even greater part.



A nice sentiment, but we've no idea what she believes and what that means for any chance of 'reintegration' - whether 'rehabilitation' is possible, or if she even wants that.

And, whilst you might be right about a duty of care, let's not forget the duty of care to others; it might be that the intelligence indicates - and, again, we've no way of knowing - that the risk to them outweighs the risk to her of staying put.

The idea that any risk she might pose could be effectively mitigated if she came back is a bit naive: First, there aren't the legal mechanisms to do it effectively on an ongoing basis; and, secondly, it'd be impossible in practice.  It'd be the easiest thing in the world for someone to smuggle a phone to her, with which she could have encrypted communications with anyone.  Or even for her to disappear; she need only to into a building inside which security services/police have no eyes on her, and come out in a burka the same time as others - no surveillance team could cover all possibilities.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Begum is a British citizen and the British state should take responsibilty for her.



The whole point is that (rightly or wrongly) she's not.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.



She's not unique.  I'm sure we'd be safer if the others had been left to rot there, too, but that's not an option.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Feb 28, 2021)

I don't see why the state should have the right to remove citizenship from anyone, it's extremely dangerous. I do think the state should have the right to try people in person or in absentia and inflict punishment but removal of citizenship should not be punishment unless such Citizenship was obtained fraudulently


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

What happened to her fellow travelers?


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> What happened to her fellow travelers?



At least one is reported as suspected to have been killed.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.



The media like nothing more than a dangerous woman.


----------



## LDC (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.



The difference is that those people returned under their own steam, whereas SB left it until she ended up in a position where she couldn't come back like that, and for her to get back here would have required a significant amount of effort from the government to get her here.

I also expect she didn't help her chances with the media interviews she did tbh.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> A nice sentiment, but we've no idea what she believes and what that means for any chance of 'reintegration' - whether 'rehabilitation' is possible, or if she even wants that.
> 
> And, whilst you might be right about a duty of care, let's not forget the duty of care to others; it might be that the intelligence indicates - and, again, we've no way of knowing - that the risk to them outweighs the risk to her of staying put.
> 
> The idea that any risk she might pose could be effectively mitigated if she came back is a bit naive: First, there aren't the legal mechanisms to do it effectively on an ongoing basis; and, secondly, it'd be impossible in practice.  It'd be the easiest thing in the world for someone to smuggle a phone to her, with which she could have encrypted communications with anyone.  Or even for her to disappear; she need only to into a building inside which security services/police have no eyes on her, and come out in a burka the same time as others - no surveillance team could cover all possibilities.


I totally agree that we don't have a framework that that can adequately addressed this issue. This is why I say it is sad not infuriating.
I wanted to present the questions I thought we should try to think about as a society rather than directly critique any decisions made.
I wanted to do that just because this thread made me think about this case more and I wanted to highlight points that appeared to me.


To actually answer this stuff is difficult bordering on the nigh impossible most likely.

I know it can be frustrating  asking 'but what if' without really going over it  but  I felt moved to throw in my 2 cents.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> The whole point is that (rightly or wrongly) she's not.



Rightly or wrongly according to ethics or the law?

Dosen't really matter as making a person stateless is unambiguously wrong either way. But it's interesting to see who is lining up behind a legal ruling which claims otherwise.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Dom Traynor said:


> I don't see why the state should have the right to remove citizenship from anyone, it's extremely dangerous. I do think the state should have the right to try people in person or in absentia and inflict punishment but removal of citizenship should not be punishment unless such Citizenship was obtained fraudulently



For me, I'm not sure stripping citizenship is necessarily worse than, say, a life sentence (assuming it doesn't leave someone stateless).  But, the big issue is that a sentence following a trial is a pretty transparent process that's less obviously directly political, whereas this allows a lot of leeway to the Home Secretary, which is compounded by the fact that the sensitivity of intelligence matters means that they can't be heard openly.  (I don't like the idea of trials in absentia, except for people who've decided to run to avoid it.)


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

Lazy of me to post a pic of a buke rather than a long post but am in bed with a wrecked back and coedined off my face atm


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Several hundred people (about 40% of the 900 who travelled to fight with daesh) have returned to the UK. I'm still unsure why sb is so uniquely dangerous she can't be allowed to return and must rot in the me.



There was huge media interest in her and the other 2 girls right from the start, when they left home and travelled to Syria.  If she'd managed to stay out of the media back then, no doubt she would have been able to come back under the radar and with no fuss.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Rightly or wrongly according to ethics or the law?
> 
> Dosen't really matter as making a person stateless is unambiguously wrong either way. But it's interesting to see who is lining up behind a legal ruling which claims otherwise.



According to the law, she's not British. Ethically, there's a reasonable argument she should be.

She's not _de jure_ stateless; she's a Bangladeshi citizen.  Though it's fair to say that Bangladesh's unlawful decision not to recognise that might make her _de facto _stateless.

There's a difference between understanding that many of the legal criticisms of the judgement are ill-conceived, and having concerns (ethical and pragmatic) about what the law should be.

As I've explained, I have concerns about this law.  But I have limited sympathy for her, and no desire to see her back in the UK (because of the risk, not as a punishment).  But nobody should be left in limbo.   My preferred option would be that she is tried (and serve any sentence) where any alleged crimes were committed.  I don't buy into the idea that British people should be entitled to a superior kind of British justice than non-British people in the same situation, overseas.


----------



## pardon (Feb 28, 2021)

If the UK doesn't want Brits to go join jihadi militia networks it should really stop sponsoring them. The UK and it's NATO allies has used these militias to fight their proxy wars for decades. To deny this girl the right to come home when there has been an open door for jihadis to go fight in  Britain's interests and return smacks of political opportunism. Is it because the uproar about these three girls running away from home at 15 led to the turkey border being closed?


----------



## pardon (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> The whole point is that (rightly or wrongly) she's not.


Yes she is, Bangladesh has denied her citizenship, and the UK government has revoked her only citizenship making her illegally stateless.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

pardon said:


> Yes she is



Not insofar as that's a legal question, she's not.


----------



## pardon (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> Not insofar as that's a legal question, she's not.


Was her birth registered at the local Bangladeshi Embassy, because until that happens she's not a Bangladeshi citizen by descent, thus making her only nationality British


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

pardon said:


> Yes she is, Bangladesh has denied her citizenship, and the UK government has revoked her only citizenship making her illegally stateless.



She was stripped of her British citizenship whilst still a dual national, such that she wasn't made stateless by the UK (albeit its arguable she was *subsequently* made _de facto_ stateless by Bangladesh's deciding not to observe its own nationality laws).  The courts have addressed all these issues at length.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

pardon said:


> Was her birth registered at the local Bangladeshi Embassy, because until that happens she's not a Bangladeshi citizen by descent, thus making her only nationality British



That's not what the Bangladeshi law says, as set out at length earlier in this thread, and in much of the relevant caselaw.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Rightly or wrongly according to ethics or the law?
> 
> ... making a person stateless is unambiguously wrong either way.



At last. Some accurate condemnation of the Bangladeshi government.


----------



## RedRedRose (Feb 28, 2021)

The cost of getting the re-integration of former ISIS members into wider society wrong, is simply huge. To say nothing of what activities they have been undertaking in said territories. I'd be swayed by (i) a genuine expression of remorse, (ii) a risk assessment close to the zero mark. But both don't seem to be forthcoming.


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 28, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I will try to address this point by point  but i'm up late/early so forgive me if I miss things. On the whole I think my safeguarding training has been decent.  but it's still tricky.
> 
> While I know plenty of people are probably studying this  as a member of staff that is requested to be aware of these thing  the training that we get is  perhaps a bit patchy
> It's not that there isn't information available it's just  that people only have a limited head space so  most training only hits the high points and broad strokes.
> ...



Of course, prevent training is scratching the surface. I'm not expecting you to study it, it's a specialism, but antiterrorism is a huge international operation, people _are_ thinking about this and it's what the training is based on. 

It's clear that your students are vulnerable but sm wasn't failed by mainstream education was she? She was a high achiever. I'm wondering what could've made a difference for her when there wasn't an identified need at the time? I'm not saying there wasn't anything btw but I don't think we have much understanding of her particular trajectory do we? On the other hand, her friend who left the UK first, had just lost her mother, and was extremely vulnerable. There hasn't been much written about the importance of this, her close friendship group.


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

CosmikRoger said:


> Loads of weaselly racism on this thread.


Yes, lots of people arguing she can’t possibly have full agency because of her background.


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

Spanner said:


> She’s a terrorist



Or an insurgent, or soldier or freedom fighter or warrior of god. Doesn’t matter really, if  she decided to go to war, lost and still poses a risk of continuing to carry that on.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

pardon said:


> Was her birth registered at the local Bangladeshi Embassy, because until that happens she's not a Bangladeshi citizen by descent, thus making her only nationality British


Where do people get this shit from?

This question has been settled very clearly and comprehensively by several courts now. Legally (according to Bristish and Bangladeshi law), Begum was a dual national at the time she was stripped of her British citizenship so the act did not make her stateless. According to Bangaldeshi law she is a citizen of that nation by birth until she is 21 unless she renounces it. She hasn't. The fact that a couple of Bangledeshi politicians have said she is not a citizen of theirs doesn't change what their law says. If the Chief of the Met Police said "driving at 100mph is legal", that wouldn't make it legal. He'd just be misinterpreting the law or, as in the case of Begum, simply ignoring what it says for his own ends.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

RedRedRose said:


> The cost of getting the re-integration of former ISIS members into wider society wrong, is simply huge. To say nothing of what activities they have been undertaking in said territories. I'd be swayed by (i) a genuine expression of remorse, (ii) a risk assessment close to the zero mark. But both don't seem to be forthcoming.


Who seems to you more likely to kill people in the UK, Boris Johnson with the blood of thousands staining his hands or shemima begum?


Spymaster said:


> Where do people get this shit from?
> 
> This question has been settled very clearly and comprehensively by several courts now. Legally (according to Bristish and Bangladeshi law), Begum was a dual national at the time she was stripped of her British citizen so the act did not make her stateless. According to Bangaldeshi law she is a citizen of that nation by birth until she is 21 unless she renounces it. She hasn't. The fact that a couple of Bangledeshi politicians have said she is not a citizen of theirs doesn't change what their law says. If the Chief of the Met Police said "driving at 100mph is legal", that wouldn't make it legal. He'd just be misinterpreting the law or, as in the case of Begum, simply ignoring what it says for his own ends.


The commissioner of the metropolitan police is Cressida Dick, who is not a man


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Where do people get this shit from?
> 
> This question has been settled very clearly and comprehensively by several courts now. Legally (according to Bristish and Bangladeshi law), Begum was a dual national at the time she was stripped of her British citizenship so the act did not make her stateless. According to Bangaldeshi law she is a citizen of that nation by birth until she is 21 unless she renounces it. She hasn't. The fact that a couple of Bangledeshi politicians have said she is not a citizen of theirs doesn't change what their law says. If the Chief of the Met Police said "driving at 100mph is legal", that wouldn't make it legal. He'd just be misinterpreting the law or, as in the case of Begum, simply ignoring what it says for his own ends.



Quite.



Athos said:


> See s.5 of the Citizenship Act 1951 (as amended).  It does not include and requirement of application or registration that you seem to be claiming:
> 
> 5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 4[ father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth:
> 
> ...


----------



## NoXion (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> Yes, lots of people arguing she can’t possibly have full agency because of her background.



Are you saying that the overwhelming majority of teenagers _don't_ run off to join a nascent theocracy that openly and proudly commits atrocities? Here I was thinking that I was unusual for being like that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 28, 2021)

The idea that I could be stripped of my British citizenship and declared a Dominican citizen is quite head fuck, actually. Having never been there and my father not having returned there since 1980's.

The 'it's the Bangladeshi government's fault feels really grubby to me. There is a massive touch of Javid and Patel proving where their loyalities lie in so much of  how they operate and seeing this argument spouted by the frothiest of racists who are only tolerant of BAME Tory MPs if they are doing the hard line 'anti-woke' and dog whistle anti-immigrant narrative is telling...


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Are you saying that the overwhelming majority of teenagers _don't_ run off to join a nascent theocracy that openly and proudly commits atrocities? Here I was thinking that I was unusual for being like that.


You were not a teen at the time this happened I suspect .


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

UKG won this race to the bottom


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> Yes, lots of people arguing she can’t possibly have full agency because of her background.


Really? I see people arguing that her lack of 'agency' was age related and the fact she was groomed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> UKG won this race to the bottom


They speed downhill

E2A they started down there - those of us with long memories will recollect the covenant of security they entered into with jihadis


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> The idea that I could be stripped of my British citizenship and declared a Dominican citizen is quite head fuck, actually.


Don't join a genocidal rape and torture club, and it won't happen. If you really feel it's impossible to stay out of the clutches of Isis, renounce one of the citizenships and Bob's your uncle.

Head fuck over.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> The idea that I could be stripped of my British citizenship and declared a Dominican citizen is quite head fuck, actually. Having never been there and my father not having returned there since 1980's.
> 
> The 'it's the Bangladeshi government's fault feels really grubby to me. There is a massive touch of Javid and Patel proving where their loyalities lie in so much of  how they operate and seeing this argument spouted by the frothiest of racists who are only tolerant of BAME Tory MPs if they are doing the hard line 'anti-woke' and dog whistle anti-immigrant narrative is telling...



At best, they've opportunistically exploited the legal position (the lucky chance that she was still a Bangledeshi dual national) in order to protect the public from a very real risk; at worst, its a cynical ploy to sacrifice this young woman for the sake of their political careers. I suspect the truth is there's a bit of both (but, without being party to the detail, we'll never know).


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Wishing doesn't enter into it. Begum is a British citizen and the British state should take responsibilty for her.





Rutita1 said:


> Really? I see people arguing that her lack of 'agency' was age related and the fact she was groomed.


Yes I saw those too, might agree a little with the first. But I also read quite a lot of racism too that a British person of Bangladeshi descent couldn’t possibly be held to the same standards of decision making as a white British person, which is obviously bollocks. Certainly reading that into the whole ‘British justice is better justice’ line.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 28, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> You were not a teen at the time this happened I suspect .



I was definitely a miserable and alienated teen at one point in my life though. Thankfully I got into heavy metal and weed smoking instead of terrorism.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> But I also read quite a lot of racism too that a British person of Bangladeshi descent couldn’t possibly be held to the same standards of decision making as a white British person, which is obviously bollocks.



Really? From whom?


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> The 'it's the Bangladeshi government's fault feels really grubby to me...



The whole thing is grubby. Killing  people by dripping guided bombs on them when we completely control the airspace seems grubby too, but if you are fighting people the more grubby normally the safer.


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Really? From whom?


Closet racists.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

Aside from anything else, this is a gift to the radicalizers and groomers.

 See, you don't belong here. You'll never truly belong to them. They will never accept you as truly British. Your loyalties should lie elsewhere. 

Any calculation of risk needs to factor in the open goal this decision represents to those who seek to turn and groom disaffected teenagers like Begum. It's not just morally rotten to do this. It's also incredibly foolish.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

This sidestepping goes no way to resolving the shithole of the IS remainder problem in the region.honest non leading question- what is being done wrt  these IS camps ?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> This sidestepping goes no way to resolving the shithole of the IS remainder problem in the region.honest non leading question- what is being done wrt  these IS camps ?


 Sure daesh will do something with them sooner or later


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> Closet racists.



You're going round the houses a bit here I reckon. Unless you've got some specific examples you'd like to pull up.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

NoXion said:


> I was definitely a miserable and alienated teen at one point in my life though. Thankfully I got into heavy metal and weed smoking instead of terrorism.



Not even an anarchist cookbook on  the shelf ? Tsk.
A bit of death metal and weed may have produced a very different begum


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

Can we start a wishy washy liberal sub forum as to offer some protection from the Chuck Norris kill them all and let god sort them out battalion ? Tks


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Aside from anything else, this is a gift to the radicalizers and groomers.
> 
> See, you don't belong here. You'll never truly belong to them. They will never accept you as truly British. Your loyalties should lie elsewhere.
> 
> Any calculation of risk needs to factor in the open goal this decision represents to those who seek to turn and groom disaffected teenagers like Begum. It's not just morally rotten to do this. It's also incredibly foolish.


You’ve got to bend yourself backwards into a polo to see it that way. One could equally argue that it’ll deter kids from joining rapey murder cults.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> This sidestepping goes no way to resolving the shithole of the IS remainder problem in the region.honest non leading question- what is being done wrt  these IS camps ?



Little. Neither the Iraqi's not the Syrians want to trigger a fresh escalation - they simply have their hands full with the current level of fighting and internal chaos - and their 'partners' have to respect that, for the moment.

What is currently going on is containment, having a pop here and there to address this or that action on a local level (tactical), and some action to mitigate the recovery of IS on a strategic level, but there isn't currently a campaign at the operational level (war) to reasert control over the camps. They are (broadly) IS run internally within territory that is contested by IS and other groups.

The war in eastern Syria isn't over, it's at a 'taking a breather' stage - all sides are regrouping, and trying to make 'facts on the ground' while not provoking their enemies to take the offensive. Full war will return, it's merely about who gets to that stage of preparedness, or is pushed into it, first.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

Of no particular scientific basis but a quick scan of soshal media on this topic does seem to have a recurring jolly racist theme going on. Apropos of nothing but yeah


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 28, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> The difference is that those people returned under their own steam, whereas SB left it until she ended up in a position where she couldn't come back like that, and for her to get back here would have required a significant amount of effort from the government to get her here.
> 
> I also expect she didn't help her chances with the media interviews she did tbh.



What was unhelpful about the interviews?


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> What was unhelpful about the interviews?



She didn't break down in floods of tears sobbing about how sorry she was and how she regretted it from the moment she got there. She still thought that IS was great, but because the local health service was shit (I shit you not), she wanted to to come back to the UK.

*Nothing to do with IS shooting all the local doctors you understand....


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 28, 2021)

kebabking said:


> She didn't break down in floods of tears sobbing about how sorry she was and how she regretted it from the moment she got there. She still thought that IS was great, but because the local health service was shit (I shit you not), she wanted to to come back to the UK.
> 
> *Nothing to do with IS shooting all the local doctors you understand....



Did she say IS is great?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

There might be a bit of background that could explain the interview direction on both sides


----------



## LDC (Feb 28, 2021)

^ yeah that what kebabking said. Not really going to help your case in coming back here is it? She'd have been better off not doing the interviews and making promises to engage in a de-radicalisation program and speak out against IS back here after that. We can speculate as to why she didn't do that.

TBH she came across as not the fastest hamster on the wheel. And the media bear a small amount of responsibility for what's happened to her since then I think, once those interviews were public the chances of her being allowed back here pretty much evaporated I think.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> It's clear that your students are vulnerable but *sm wasn't failed by mainstream education was she? She was a high achiever.* I'm wondering what could've made a difference for her when there wasn't an identified need at the time? I'm not saying there wasn't anything btw but I don't think we have much understanding of her particular trajectory do we? On the other hand, her friend who left the UK first, had just lost her mother, and was extremely vulnerable. There hasn't been much written about the importance of this, her close friendship group.


Looking at the first highlighted bit I have to ask what is or isn't a failure. Was she?  what is the purpose of education? To score points on a quiz or to to give you the skills to be easily able to integrate into society.
Yes education is aimed at giving you skills and a person may score highly on a technical issue  but  that does not give an understanding of  personal stress or  ideologies. Academic targets may have been met but what of pastoral care?
I work in a college where I have a relatively small number of students a year and I often focus more on assessment criteria  that holistic needs.  It's a sad part of teaching where you often deliver the care you think you can do rather than the care you would like to do. I think this maybe also true of most agencies. 

Also just because someone doesn't hit all the targets doesn't mean they are not vurablr.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Did she say IS is great?


She was asked her opinion on IS murdering their way across two countries and replied something along the lines of ‘our people are being murdered by American and British bombs in Baghuz’. “Our people” in this case being ISIS.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

One my kids teachers used to be her tutor . They were not aware of anything amiss with her before she skipped the country


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Looking at the first highlighted bit I have to ask what is or isn't a failure. Was she?  what is the purpose of education? To score points on a quiz or to to give you the skills to be easily able to integrate into society.
> Yes education is aimed at giving you skills and a person may score highly on a technical issue  but  that does not give an understanding of  personal stress or  ideologies. Academic targets may have been met but what of pastoral care?
> I work in a college where I have a relatively small number of students a year and I often focus more on assessment criteria  that holistic needs.  It's a sad part of teaching where you often deliver the care you think you can do rather than the care you would like to do. I think this maybe also true of most agencies.
> 
> Also just because someone doesn't hit all the targets doesn't mean they are not vurablr.


Er socialisation is to give you the skills to get along with other people. Vast swathes of what people are taught has nothing to do with integrating into society


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> She was asked her opinion on IS murdering their way across two countries and replied something along the lines of ‘our people are being murdered by American and British bombs in Baghuz’. “Our people” in this case being ISIS.


 
what else would she know ? We’ve kinda worked out she’s not massively smart ( or comes across that way anyway) .


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

I am not saying these people have no sense of agency.  Those who lack any  agency tend to coast though the system.
The problem is where the alternative lifestyle dream is sold as being more noble, rewarding, and achievable than the mainstream concept.


----------



## NoXion (Feb 28, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> Not even an anarchist cookbook on  the shelf ? Tsk.
> A bit of death metal and weed may have produced a very different begum



Funnily enough, I actually once had a number of different "manuals" like that from all over the political spectrum. Along with a digital copy of what purported to be the Anarchist Cookbook, I had something called the White Resistance Manual (which honestly was probably the most serious document of the lot) and something else entitled, IIRC, the CIA Book of Dirty Tricks (despite the title the author seemed to be a leftist). This was around about the same time I had a paper copy of an "SAS" survival guide, which as well as teaching stuff about wilderness survival like making shelters and building traps, also had a section on _how to sneak up on people and slit their fucking throats_. That was in a book I bought legitimately from a shop and everything. Fortunately or unfortunately, I lost the hard drive I kept them on, and the SAS book got lost when I moved house at some point.

I definitely would not feel safe openly searching up this kind of stuff nowadays, although I reckon you could probably still get your hands on them by hanging around the right Walter Mitty circles.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Er socialisation is to give you the skills to get along with other people. Vast swathes of what people are taught has nothing to do with integrating into society


Ok. What class is socialisation? What spreadsheet do you enter that into?

Yes being part of a school life is meant to give you access to the kind of socialisation that helps you integrate but that is not guaranteed. Some school experiences can be quite alienating.
Teachers hopefully might pick up on that  but given all the other thing they are focusing on and what needs to go into the spreadsheet  analysis of something as tangential and abstract as socialisation is not something I think most schools pay great attention too.
The student who sits alone but does fine on the mock is usually not your first priority.
Sure vast swathes of what people are taught has nothing to do with integrating into society but it is part of what people should learn (according to most curriculum models)
Vast swathes of people turn out fine but the problem is not with vast swathes of students.
I want to know why it goes wrong to try and  avoid it in the future.
If we accept young people into our care as a society how do we deal with those who fall short?
Reformation or exile?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Ok. What class is socialisation? What spreadsheet do you enter that into?
> 
> Yes being part of a school life is meant to give you access to the kind of socialisation that helps you integrate but that is not guaranteed. Some school experiences can be quite alienating.
> Teachers hopefully might pick up on that  but given all the other thing they are focusing on and what needs to go into the spreadsheet  analysis of something as tangential and abstract as socialisation is not something I think most schools pay great attention too.
> ...


Badly


----------



## RedRedRose (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Who seems to you more likely to kill people in the UK, Boris Johnson with the blood of thousands staining his hands or shemima begum?


I'm also happy for Boris to be stripped of his passport


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Who seems to you more likely to kill people in the UK, Boris Johnson with the blood of thousands staining his hands or shemima begum?


Who would you rather have babysit your kids?


----------



## RedRedRose (Feb 28, 2021)

People keep mentioning race, but this was also done to Jihadi Jack and he's a white Canadian/British national.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

RedRedRose said:


> People keep mentioning race, but this was also done to Jihadi Jack and he's a white Canadian/British national.


I mentioned earlier, look at social media comments in this and race


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

RedRedRose said:


> People keep mentioning race, but this was also done to Jihadi Jack and he's a white Canadian/British national.


There is a massive difference between the two cases, which is that Letts (and Canada) was aware of his dual citizenship and had indeed reached out to the Canadian authorities the year before his British citizenship was revoked.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is a massive difference between the two cases, which is that Letts was aware of his dual citizenship and had indeed reached out to the Canadian authorities the year before his British citizenship was revoked.


The fact that the majority of dual citizens who’ve had their British nationality stripped for joinimg ISIS are brown is not evidence of racism. It’s evidence that the vast majority of British dual citizens who join ISIS are brown.

You know that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

I don't agree with what they did to Letts either btw.  And fwiw Canada has a far less grubby attitude than the UK. 

But the cases contain a huge different. What has been done to Begum is far, far grubbier.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Aside from anything else, this is a gift to the radicalizers and groomers.
> 
> See, you don't belong here. You'll never truly belong to them. They will never accept you as truly British. Your loyalties should lie elsewhere.
> 
> Any calculation of risk needs to factor in the open goal this decision represents to those who seek to turn and groom disaffected teenagers like Begum. It's not just morally rotten to do this. It's also incredibly foolish.



Whilst not theoretically impossible, and accepting we have no data one way or the other, it seems inherently unlikely that this legal provision would be a deciding factor in a significant number of people joining IS.  I suspect that, in practice, it has enabled more dangerous people to be excluded from our society than it has created within it.

There's also a strong undercurrent of liberal superiority in much of this debate.  This idea that our values are so clearly better that the only reason people could eschew them is that we've alienated those people.   Maybe they understand our values, and have had every opportunity to embrace them, but hate them (and us), and prefer values that are not only at odds with ours, but are incompatible with our safety and security?


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't agree with what they did to Letts either btw.  And fwiw Canada has a far less grubby attitude than the UK.
> 
> But the cases contain a huge different. What has been done to Begum is far, far grubbier.



You're right. Though we don't know they wouldn't have acted just as grubbily if she'd been white.  The idea that this is motivated by racism is flimsy, and certainly a non-starter when it comes to any serious challenge (legal or ethical).


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 28, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> Looking at the first highlighted bit I have to ask what is or isn't a failure. Was she?  what is the purpose of education? To score points on a quiz or to to give you the skills to be easily able to integrate into society.
> Yes education is aimed at giving you skills and a person may score highly on a technical issue  but  that does not give an understanding of  personal stress or  ideologies. Academic targets may have been met but what of pastoral care?
> I work in a college where I have a relatively small number of students a year and I often focus more on assessment criteria  that holistic needs.  It's a sad part of teaching where you often deliver the care you think you can do rather than the care you would like to do. I think this maybe also true of most agencies.
> 
> Also just because someone doesn't hit all the targets doesn't mean they are not vurablr.



You seem to think I'm arguing with you rather than trying to explore the subject. She may well have been vulnerable _and_ academically able but your example of vulnerability was your students who haven't succeeded in mainstream education, and that wasn't the case for her. My initial point was that adolescence, because it's a state of transition and change, as experienced in our society anyway, is a potentially vulnerable time for all. 

But we don't know very much about her at all, so it's hard to say anything that isn't very general. As I pointed out in the bit you didn't highlight:

*I'm wondering what could've made a difference for her when there wasn't an identified need at the time? I'm not saying there wasn't anything btw but I don't think we have much understanding of her particular trajectory do we? *


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> She was asked her opinion on IS murdering their way across two countries and replied something along the lines of ‘our people are being murdered by American and British bombs in Baghuz’. “Our people” in this case being ISIS.



Did she say IS is great?


----------



## Red Cat (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> Yes, lots of people arguing she can’t possibly have full agency because of her background.



Well, nobody has full agency, but there are clearly times when we have less than others. 

I _do _think this case brings out questions about agency in relation to age, gender, ethnicity, class, who is seen to have it and what colours our views about who doesn't. I think that's one of the reasons it's attracted so much discussion.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Did she say IS is great?











						IS bride Shamima Begum full transcript: 'It was nice at first, like in the videos'
					

The teenager says "a lot of people should have sympathy" for her and there is no evidence she has done anything dangerous.




					news.sky.com
				




What do you think her attitude to IS was at the time she game the interview?


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 28, 2021)

kebabking said:


> IS bride Shamima Begum full transcript: 'It was nice at first, like in the videos'
> 
> 
> The teenager says "a lot of people should have sympathy" for her and there is no evidence she has done anything dangerous.
> ...



Dunno, am not a mind reader.

Are you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Did she say IS is great?


Not sure it matters if she did.

Some here seem to be suggesting that she needs to show evidence of deradicalisation before she should be considered for help to return here. She's not exaclty in the ideal environment right now for that process to take place.

As the piece I linked to earlier pointed out, Northern European countries could learn from others about the kinds of ways this can be handled. These aren't easy solutions - the easy solution is to act like the UK and try to disown the problem, but that's not really a solution at all ultimately. These countries might not be getting everything right, but at least their intentions are correct.



> Kazakhstan has repatriated more than 400 children and 100 mothers, regarding all of the children as victims even if they have been radicalized. Kazakhstan has also implemented rehabilitation programs that are necessary to ensuring that the children are able to adjust into the society and not conduct violent attacks in the future. Under the auspices of Kazakhstan’s Ministry of Education, two non-governmental organizations have opened 17 rehabilitation and reintegration centers that employ mental health professionals, religious scholars, lawyers, healthcare professionals, and teachers, all of whom are committed to helping the children and their mothers. In Kosovo, deradicalization programs for returnees involve addressing the individual factors that contributed to the adults’ decisions to join ISIS, as well as the structural inadequacies that made some Kosovars feel marginalized and desperate for opportunity – desperate enough to leave Kosovo to join ISIS. This societal aspect of deradicalization that involves listening to and addressing returnees’ legitimate grievances is one with which many Western European countries have struggled.



imo Begum belongs in a grey area  - part victim, part perpetrator. Dealing with such cases effectively is going to involve a mix of caution, rigour and compassion.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Dunno, am not a mind reader.
> 
> Are you?



No, but I can read the transcript - the one you've actually quoted.

If you want to read through it and quote the bits where she talks about being disappointed with the reality of IS, where she's upset by the brutality of IS, and how she wishes she'd never set foot there, be my guest - I'm sure your being able to show this stuff in writing will, once and for all, quell any talk of her being a deeply unpleasant individual with very nasty attitudes to anyone who doesn't share her political/religious viewpoints....


----------



## krtek a houby (Feb 28, 2021)

kebabking said:


> No, but I can read the transcript - the one you've actually quoted.
> 
> If you want to read through it and quote the bits where she talks about being disappointed with the reality of IS, where she's upset by the brutality of IS, and how she wishes she'd never set foot there, be my guest - I'm sure your being able to show this stuff in writing will, once and for all, quell any talk of her being a deeply unpleasant individual with very nasty attitudes to anyone who doesn't share her political/religious viewpoints....



Haven't quoted any transcript.

Am asking simply if she actually said ISIS is great, in response to you saying "She still thought that IS was great".


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 28, 2021)

Bangladesh has stated that any of its citizens who return from ISIS will be hanged, so her best bet is to embrace her Bangladeshiness and make her way to the U.K. and claim asylum.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Who would you rather have babysit your kids?


i think they'd imbibe fewer bad ideas from begum


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> Whilst not theoretically impossible, and accepting we have no data one way or the other, it seems inherently unlikely that this legal provision would be a deciding factor in a significant number of people joining IS.  I suspect that, in practice, it has enabled more dangerous people to be excluded from our society than it has created within it.
> 
> There's also a strong undercurrent of liberal superiority in much of this debate.  This idea that our values are so clearly better that the only reason people could eschew them is that we've alienated those people.   Maybe they understand our values, and have had every opportunity to embrace them, but hate them (and us), and prefer values that are not only at odds with ours, but are incompatible with our safety and security?


This^.

I am sure there are lots of clever, educated well motivated people in IS/Desh . I imagine quite a lot of their fighters were courageous and, however strong your faith, if you are a true volunteer suicide bomberyou are going to have to be massively brave to detonate . It’s because of this I despise the ideals and ideology and am sufficiently scared of them that I’d like us to be fighting them in Syria  and Iraq rather than London and Luton The more asymmetrically the better.


----------



## pardon (Feb 28, 2021)

Quite.



Athos said:


> Provided that if the 5[ father or mother] of such person is a citizen of Bangladesh by descent only, that person shall not be a citizen of Bangladesh by virtue of this section unless-
> 
> 
> 
> (a) that person's birth having occurred in a country outside Bangladesh the birth is registered at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country, or where there is no Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in that country at the prescribed Consulate or Mission or at a Bangladesh Consulate or Mission in the country nearest to that country



So we are absolutely clear that her birth was registered at the Bangladeshi consulate.

You have evidence of this...?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> This^.
> 
> I am sure there are lots of clever, educated well motivated people in IS/Desh . I imagine quite a lot of their fighters were courageous and, however strong your faithif you are a true volunteer suicide bomberyou are going to have to be massively brave to drying . It’s because of this I despise the ideals and ideology and am sufficiently scared of them that I’d like us to be fighting them in Libya  and Iraq rather than London.The more asymmetrically the better.


how fortunate then that the cameron administration created the conditions for the uk to fight them in libya


----------



## pardon (Feb 28, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> One my kids teachers used to be her tutor . They were not aware of anything amiss with her before she skipped the country


Except the school was asked to warn the parents because one of their previous pupils had gone to Iraq and was grooming her friends to join her, they gave the girls letters to bring home to their parents these three girls didn't being those letters home. Instead of posting those letters directly to the parents they gave them to young children being groomed by Isis recruiters and pedophiles.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

pardon said:


> Quite.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, we're absolutely clear that, under Bangladeshi law, registration is not required for citizenship by desent where a parent is themselves a citizen by place of birth.

5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 *a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 4[ father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth*:  [then it goes on to set out a requirement for registration *only in cases where the parent is Bangladeshi by desent, rather than place of birth*]

I.e. because her parents are Bangladeshis born in Bangladesh, she was Bangladeshi from birth.  Whereas, her children would only have been Bangladeshi on registration (because their mother was Bangladeshi by desent, rather then by virtue of being born in Bangladesh).

It's all covered in the judgements.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, we're absolutely clear that, under Bangladeshi law, registration is not required for citizenship by desent where a parent is themselves a citizen by place of birth.  It's all covered in the judgements.
> 
> 5. Subject to the provisions of section 3 *a person born after the commencement of this Act, shall be a citizen of Bangladesh by descent if his 4[ father or mother] is a citizen of Bangladesh at the time of his birth*:  [then it goes on to set out a requirement for registration *only in cases where the parent is Bangladeshi by desent, rather than place of birth*]


I remember finding this quite useful when I first read it:

Bangladeshi or Stateless? A Practical Analysis of Shamima Begum’s Status


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

I think the nub of the issue is that people are mistaking law, ethics and safety .

The Supreme Court says this is lawful. Personally I feel safer knowing she is not in the UK.  Nowhere do I argue that either of these is the ‘ethically right’  outcome.

But there isn’t one. I’m slightly more in favour of the rights of 15 year old women to go to shit pop concerts without being maimed or killed than to go and support a feudal apartheid Caliphate and then, a few years later when said theocracy has been bombed into a few camps, pop back, do three three years inside and then cost the public sector probably the same as a medium size secondary school English or Langauge departmrnt to monitor indefinitely. But I’m not saying that makes me a good person.


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i think they'd imbibe fewer bad ideas from begum


No, cos Bojo would wave you off, send your child to bed and then get one of his mistresses round to shag on your sofa after drinking all your good scotch and eating half the contents of your fridge. Then he’d try to screw you for extra pay and taxi fare for being  home seven minutes after midnight...


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> Personally I feel safer knowing she is not in the UK.



You do know the same government that is making an example of this woman has also presided over 100,000 preventable deaths in the past year right?

But as long as you feel _safe_.


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> You do know the same government that is making an example of this woman has also presided over 100,000 preventable deaths in the past year right?
> 
> But as long as you feel _safe_.


I reackon it will probably be closer to 150,000 preventable deaths. And they are’t gripping any long term IS solution for the camps so stacking up trouble for later. Also Bojo’s a cunt. What do any of those things have to do with this?

Also where do I say I feel safe?I say consistently I feel more safe with her there than I would here. That isnu the same thing.

Whilst you’re on why not tell us what your solution is?


----------



## LDC (Feb 28, 2021)

Given they're often posited as the alternative I'm interested to read some stuff on the effectiveness of the de-radicalisation programs, as what I've heard from what other people have read, and the little I've read myself, is that they're not very effective at all.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> You do know the same government that is making an example of this woman has also presided over 100,000 preventable deaths in the past year right?


“They fucked up Covid so they should allow ISIS terrorists into the country”.

Brilliant!


----------



## emanymton (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Who would you rather have babysit your kids?


Are those the only options? No chance the Mccanns are available?


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

I think Ian Huntley's at a loose end at the moment.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> No, cos Bojo would wave you off, send your child to bed and then get one of his mistresses round to shag on your sofa after drinking all your good scotch and eating half the contents of your fridge. Then he’d try to screw you for extra pay and taxi fare for being  home seven minutes after midnight...


He'd read to the child from Priti Patel's book of horrors


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I think Ian Huntley's at a loose end at the moment.


Sadly not the knotted end


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> I reackon it will probably be closer to 150,000 preventable deaths. And they are’t gripping any long term IS solution for the camps so stacking up trouble for later. Also Bojo’s a cunt. What do any of those things have to do with this?



Just have a look round at who you're agreeing with is all I ask. You're agreeing with a state run by mass murderers about who is or is not an existential threat to you.


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just have a look round at who you're agreeing with is all I ask. You're agreeing with a state run by mass murderers about who is or is not an existential threat to you.


So what would you do?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Given they're often posited as the alternative I'm interested to read some stuff on the effectiveness of the de-radicalisation programs, as what I've heard from what other people have read, and the little I've read myself, is that they're not very effective at all.


This is an article about Kazakhstan. They are probably the world leaders in this wrt ISIS returnees. Too early to tell how effective this programme is going to be, but it appears a well-thought-out scheme, one that balances the need for maintaining security with the desire to help and truly change people. It makes an interesting distinction between disengagement from violence and true deradicalisation - letting go of the belief system - which is harder to achieve.



> As much as governments and the public want to be protected against terrorism, most don’t want security considerations to dominate every aspect of society and life, and they don’t want the fear of terrorism to quash humanitarian responses and human rights. Many governments and civil society organizations also want to appropriately and accurately distinguish between terrorists and their victims while acknowledging that some persons returning from the Islamic State may have been both.   Many countries support using psychological and social means to help returnees and other vulnerable persons to avoid falling prey to extremism and violence.
> 
> The activity currently taking place on the steppes of Kazakhstan aims to build a model that strikes the right balance between governmental and non-governmental actors, between security and human rights, and between a focus on social and psychological drivers and one that primarily targets ideology.



Rehabilitating the Islamic State’s Women and Children Returnees in Kazakhstan


----------



## LDC (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is an article about Kazakhstan. They are probably the world leaders in this wrt ISIS returnees. Too early to tell, mostly, exactly how effective this programme is going to be, but it appears a well-thought-out scheme, one that balances the need for maintaining security with the desire to help and truly change people. It makes an interesting distinction between disengagement from violence and true deradicalisation - letting go of the belief system - which is harder to achieve.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehabilitating the Islamic State’s Women and Children Returnees in Kazakhstan



Thanks. What made me think about it was I was talking to a clinical psychologist who was saying that there's increasing research that shows the programs designed for pedophile rehabilitation are increasingly shown not to work, and in some instances even encourage the behaviour and enable them to do things like exchange methods of evading detection. Various suggestions as to why this might be, just thought there might be some interesting possible similarities.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is an article about Kazakhstan. They are probably the world leaders in this wrt ISIS returnees. Too early to tell how effective this programme is going to be, but it appears a well-thought-out scheme, one that balances the need for maintaining security with the desire to help and truly change people. It makes an interesting distinction between disengagement from violence and true deradicalisation - letting go of the belief system - which is harder to achieve.
> 
> 
> 
> Rehabilitating the Islamic State’s Women and Children Returnees in Kazakhstan


You say it's too early to tell how well this programme works but you rely on a 2019 article when there's this Could Kazakhstan Efforts to Repatriate Foreign Fighters Be a Model? from a month ago (other more recent articles available)

People were talking about a need for rehabilitating women like sb seven years ago (eg Female Members of ISIS on JSTOR) so it's rather dispiriting but predictable that a considered solution to this issue hasn't been arrived at


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Thanks. What made me think about it was I was talking to a clinical psychologist who was saying that there's increasing research that shows the programs designed for pedophile rehabilitation are increasing shown to not work, but in some instances even encourage the behaviour and enable them to do things like exchange methods of evading detection. Various suggestions as to why this might be, just thought there might be some interesting possible similarities.


An aspect of the Kazakh programme that I like is that they appear very willing to change their programme as they go. They seem to have a certain humility as they don't start off assuming they know how to do this. At the very least, that seems the right attitude to have. 



> In lectures and discussions with the staffs of these centers, I have shared the experiences of other programs that have shown it is often more feasible to get individuals to relinquish active support for violent action (disengagement) than it is to persuade them to relinquish their belief system (deradicalization).
> 
> The rehabilitation and reintegration practitioners in Kazakhstan are working by trial and error but learning lessons every day that they want to share. In turn, they are eager to receive advice from foreign specialists, even when the specialists come from countries such as the United States that have not had nearly as many returnees.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An aspect of the Kazakh programme that I like is that they appear very willing to change their programme as they go. They seem to have a certain humility as they don't start off assuming they know how to do this. At the very least, that seems the right attitude to have.


Maybe your opinion might be weightier if you read articles about the scheme published this decade


----------



## xenon (Feb 28, 2021)

Has anyone offered evidence to show she was groomed into this? It keeps getting repeated along with the insistence of conferring victim status on her.

I just don't remember all this fuss when Alex Koti had his nationality taken away. Which does seem to have been illegally done. Where as here we have a lot of handringing about this young woman and dismissal of Bangladeshi law, as not being proper in some way.

Maybe that's all part of the sexism and racism too?


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

xenon said:


> Has anyone offered evidence to show she was groomed into this? It keeps getting repeated along with the insistence of conferring victim status on her.
> 
> I just don't remember all this fuss when Alex Koti had his nationality taken away. Which does seem to have been illegally done. Where as here we have a lot of handringing about this young woman and dismissal of Bangladeshi law, as not being proper in some way.
> 
> Maybe that's all part of the sexism and racism too?


Never mind the sexism and racism, I'm surprised by hmg's attitude on the grounds of pragmatism alone, it being better to keep an eye on sb and women in her position rather than let them sit out among daesh loons and wait for someone to find something for her to do


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> So what would you do?



I'm not in charge. If I was, if I was a supreme court judge or a government minister, I hope I would act in a way that made people less, rather than more likely to end up hating the society they were born in. I hope I would see such a high-profile case as an opportunity to make an example of kindness and mercy. 

And I'm sure the string-her-up contingent here will find that hilarious.


----------



## bimble (Feb 28, 2021)

145 pages!
Has anyone got the list or definition of what offences can cause a dual citizen to lose their Uk citizenship?
If it’s pretty clearly ‘don’t join an enemy army’ then that’s reassuring.


----------



## kebabking (Feb 28, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Never mind the sexism and racism, I'm surprised by hmg's attitude on the grounds of pragmatism alone, it being better to keep an eye on sb and women in her position rather than let them sit out among daesh loons and wait for someone to find something for her to do



When she first appeared she was in a camp controlled and administered by Kurdish, virulently anti-IS groups in an area where IS were completely defeated. The IS people were very definitely under control - she was, as far as HMG was concerned, secure. Unfortunately, several years on and the situation has changed - IS structures have effectively taken control of the internal management of the camps, though they are still in Kurdish controlled territory, IS have very much reasserted themselves as an insurgent/terrorist group in the wider area.

HMG is pursuing a less than perfect policy because there are no perfect policies available.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

kebabking said:


> When she first appeared she was in a camp controlled and administered by Kurdish, virulently anti-IS groups in an area where IS were completely defeated. The IS people were very definitely under control - she was, as far as HMG was concerned, secure. Unfortunately, several years on and the situation has changed - IS structures have effectively taken control of the internal management of the camps, though they are still in Kurdish controlled territory, IS have very much reasserted themselves as an insurgent/terrorist group in the wider area.
> 
> HMG is pursuing a less than perfect policy because there are no perfect policies available.



Almost as if leaving a bunch of readymade IS reinforcements lying around in the care of people with little capacity to do anything with them was a shit idea or something.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Almost as if leaving a bunch of readymade IS reinforcements lying around in the care of people with little capacity to do anything with them was a shit idea or something.



Yes, much better to have them wandering the UK's streets, planning God-knows-what.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not in charge. If I was, if I was a supreme court judge or a government minister, I hope I would act in a way that made people less, rather than more likely to end up hating the society they were born in. I hope I would see such a high-profile case as an opportunity to make an example of kindness and mercy.
> 
> And I'm sure the string-her-up contingent here will find that hilarious.



Not hilarious, just naive. The idea that these people - who cook babies alive and feed them to their mothers (women they'd already gang-raped, after beheading their sons in front of them) - would see the error of their ways from your turn-the-other-cheek example is laughable. They'd still despite you and everything for which you stand; all you'd achieve is giving them the opportunity to act on that.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

bimble said:


> 145 pages!
> Has anyone got the list or definition of what offences can cause a dual citizen to lose their Uk citizenship?
> If it’s pretty clearly ‘don’t join an enemy army’ then that’s reassuring.



It doesn't work like that. The HS has to be satisfied that deprivation of British citizenship is 'conducive to the public good' - which could cover a multitude of sins!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> Not hilarious, just naive. The idea that these people - who cooked babies alive and fed them to their mothers (women they'd already gang-raped, after beheading their sons in front of them) - would see the error of their ways from your turn-the-other-cheek example is laughable. They'd still despite you and everything for which you stand; all you'd achieve is giving them the opportunity to act on that.








Athos said:


> Yes, much better to have them wandering the UK's streets, planning God-knows-what.



Leaving them to wander the streets, as suggested by nobody.


----------



## bimble (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> It doesn't work like that. The HS has to be satisfied that deprivation of British citizenship is 'conducive to the public good' - which could cover a multitude of sins!


Well, that’s not reassuring at all. That could cover selling ten pound bags of weed, couldn’t it, or being a drain on public finances even. Dual citizens on best behaviour from now on then.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> An aspect of the Kazakh programme that I like is that they appear very willing to change their programme as they go. They seem to have a certain humility as they don't start off assuming they know how to do this. At the very least, that seems the right attitude to have.



Time will tell. Perhaps they'll do far better than any such programme to date, and achieve a 90% success rate, in which case they'll have released 'only' a few tens of violent fascist extremists (willing and able to kill and die for the cause) into their society.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

bimble said:


> Well, that’s not reassuring at all. That could cover selling ten pound bags of weed, couldn’t it, or being a drain on public finances even. Dual citizens on best behaviour from now on then.


The way to view it is to take a look at examples of it having been done and see which ones seem unreasonable. I've asked quite a few times for examples of it ever happening to non-terrorists and so far nobody has given one.


----------



## bimble (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The way to view it is to take a look at examples of it having been done and see which ones seems unreasonable. I've asked quite a few times for examples of it ever happening to non-terrorists and so far nobody has given one.


Fine then, if it stays that way. But ‘conducive to the public good’ is about as wide open a definition as could exist isn’t it.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Leaving them to wander the streets, as suggested by nobody.



What do you think will happen to them ultimately, then?  Even if she was convicted, Begum would be unlikely to get more than five years, of which she'd serve half, less any time in remand. She might be subject to a TPIM for a while thereafter, but likely to be free to do pretty much what she likes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

kebabking said:


> When she first appeared she was in a camp controlled and administered by Kurdish, virulently anti-IS groups in an area where IS were completely defeated. The IS people were very definitely under control - she was, as far as HMG was concerned, secure. Unfortunately, several years on and the situation has changed - IS structures have effectively taken control of the internal management of the camps, though they are still in Kurdish controlled territory, IS have very much reasserted themselves as an insurgent/terrorist group in the wider area.
> 
> HMG is pursuing a less than perfect policy because there are no perfect policies available.


Hmg are utterly incompetent and never think further than the tip of Boris Johnson's nose


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 28, 2021)

Has SB actually ever planned an attack or murdered anyone? I know she said she'd seen a severed head in a bin but did she take part or plan anything? 

I get why people are cautious of course but the idea that she'd come back and be free to plan and follow through on anything has to be based on her already having done something like that doesn't it? 

She left England and ended up a 'brood mare' for IS.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The way to view it is to take a look at examples of it having been done and see which ones seems unreasonable. I've asked quite a few times for examples of it ever happening to non-terrorists and so far nobody has given one.



I'm not sure I agree with that. Plenty of precedent for the state using powers (particularly anti-terrorism) for purposes beyond those for which they were intended.


----------



## Pickman's model (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Has SB actually ever planned an attack or murdered anyone? I know she said she'd seen a severed head in a bin but did she take part or plan anything?
> 
> I get why people are cautious of course but the idea that she'd come back and be free to plan and follow through on anything has to be based on her already having done something like that doesn't it?
> 
> She left England and ended up a 'brood mare' for IS.


Yeh but once she's back in blighty who knows what dastardly plot she might orchestrate, female more deadly than the male, etc etc


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Has SB actually ever planned an attack or murdered anyone? I know she said she'd seen a severed head in a bin but did she take part or plan anything?
> 
> I get why people are cautious of course but the idea that she'd come back and be free to plan and follow through on anything has to be based on her already having done something like that doesn't it?
> 
> She left England and ended up a 'brood mare' for IS.



We don't what the intelligence says about her, but there is witness evidence that she carried an AK47 as an enforcer in the IS morality police.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The way to view it is to take a look at examples of it having been done and see which ones seems unreasonable. I've asked quite a few times for examples of it ever happening to non-terrorists and so far nobody has given one.



You can now be denied a renewal of your UK passport if your other passport shows a different surname. This is of course disproportionately likely to affect women, what with them being far more likely to change their surname.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. Plenty of precedent for the state using powers (particularly anti-terrorism) for purposes beyond those for which they were intended.


Specifically of someone being stripped of their UK Citizenship under non-terrorism auspices, I mean. There must be some but nobody has been able to give an example. This indicates thatb this particular piece of law isn't being used to wholesale deprive people of their rights. Brown people mainly, of course. Mustn't forget to play the race card.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> You can now be denied a renewal of your UK passport if your other passport shows a different surname. This is of course disproportionately likely to affect women, what with them being far more likely to change their surname.


Under what circumstances and how has it been applied? Let's have examples of the misapplication of this.

Give us some links.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 28, 2021)

Windrush anyone? ...Cause it never happens to people who aren't terrorists or sympathisers does it?


----------



## bimble (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Specifically of someone being stripped of their UK Citizenship under non-terrorism auspices, I mean. There must be some but nobody has been able to give an example. This indicates thatb this particular piece of law isn't being used to wholesale deprive people of their rights. Brown people mainly, of course. Mustn't forget to play the race card.


This is quite sweet, you just have more faith in Priti Patel than other people do.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Windrush anyone? ...Cause it never happens to people who aren't terrorists or sympathisers does it?


Can you give us some examples of Windrush dual citizens having their British nationality revoked?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Feb 28, 2021)

Athos said:


> What do you think will happen to them ultimately, then?  Even if she was convicted, a Begum would be unlikely to get more than five years, of which she'd serve half, less any time in remand. She might be subject to a TPIM for a while thereafter, but likely to be free to do pretty much what she likes.



God, due process, that sounds awful. 

Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer or something?


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Specifically of someone being stripped of their UK Citizenship under non-terrorism auspices, I mean. There must be some but nobody has been able to give an example. This indicates thatb this particular piece of law isn't being used to wholesale deprive people of their rights. Brown people mainly, of course. Mustn't forget to play the race card.



It isn't, yet. But I wouldn't be so blasé about the idea that it could never be. Especially with the latitude it gives the HS.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> God, due process, that sounds awful.
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer or something?


Why do you think she should be spared trial in the country where her crimes were committed, by the people she committed them against?


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> God, due process, that sounds awful.
> 
> Aren't you supposed to be a lawyer or something?



I've not practiced for many years.

The point is the process would inevitably end with them free to walk the UK's streets (often in no time at all) - something you seemed to deny was a consequence of your proposal.

I'd love them to be subject to the due process of a trial in the place they're alleged to have committed their crimes.


----------



## A380 (Feb 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not in charge. If I was, if I was a supreme court judge or a government minister, I hope I would act in a way that made people less, rather than more likely to end up hating the society they were born in. I hope I would see such a high-profile case as an opportunity to make an example of kindness and mercy.
> 
> And I'm sure the string-her-up contingent here will find that hilarious.


So what would your plan actually look like? Not platitudes with which no one would disagree.  I am genuinely interested, what do you think a fair an equitable state with a rational foreign policy and just criminal justice system (none of which the UK is /are obvs) should do?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

A380 said:


> So what would your plan actually look like? Not platitudes with which no one would disagree.  I am genuinely interested, what do you think a fair an equitable state with a rational foreign policy and just criminal justice system (none of which the UK is /are obvs) should do?


Leaving thousands of people in camps where nobody knows what to do with them, and within which IS is reasserting itself, is an ongoing disaster. 

Big question to ask what the plan should be to deal with that. But would it help the situation if the foreign IS members were repatriated and every country were to take on responsibility to deal with their citizens as the likes of Kazakhstan are doing? I would think it would help, yes, so that's one part of a plan.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

The Kazakhs are well aware how easily things can go to shit re Daesh just by looking around the wider region. Their take on things is motivated by tackling the issue before the randoms trudge home under their own steam. It helps that the state apparatus under the quasi dictatorship is already in place to enforce the policy


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Leaving thousands of people in camps where nobody knows what to do with them, and within which IS is reasserting itself, is an ongoing disaster.
> 
> Big question to ask what the plan should be to deal with that. But would it help the situation if the foreign IS members were repatriated and every country were to take on responsibility to deal with their citizens as the likes of Kazakhstan are doing? I would think it would help, yes, so that's one part of a plan.


And at least 3 years of supporting genocide, torture, and rape, go unanswered.

Disgusting.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 28, 2021)

The Kazakhs are banging  up the men who arrive back


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> And at least 3 years of supporting genocide, torture, and rape, go unanswered.
> 
> Disgusting.


They're not being answered at the moment, are they? You've got a bunch of people in limbo and IS reasserting itself. The UK government's current response is entirely self-serving. It doesn't help the situation. It's not designed to help the situation.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're not being answered at the moment, are they? You've got a bunch of people in limbo and IS reasserting itself. The UK government's current response is entirely self-serving. It doesn't help the situation. It's not designed to help the situation.


If she gets to the UK she will have escaped justice. Anything that prevents that happening is good. This is just one of quite a few reasons she shouldn't be allowed back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> If she gets to the UK she will have escaped justice. Anything that prevents that happening is good. This is just one of quite a few reasons she shouldn't be allowed back.


If she gets to the UK, she faces five years in jail. You may not think that's enough, but it's not nothing.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If she gets to the UK, she faces five years in jail.


And no trial for supporting genocide, rape, and murder. As I said, escaping justice.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> If she gets to the UK she will have escaped justice. Anything that prevents that happening is good. This is just one of quite a few reasons she shouldn't be allowed back.


Does she have any prospect of facing justice without returning to the UK? AFAIK, there is no other country interested in prosecuting her, and being made a refugee as an alternative to being tried does not constitute justice by any stretch.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Feb 28, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Does she have any prospect of facing justice without returning to the UK? AFAIK, there is no other country interested in prosecuting her, and being made a refugee as an alternative to being tried does not constitute justice by an stretch.



I think it comes down to the 'let her rot' type of  justice.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Does she have any prospect of facing justice without returning to the UK? AFAIK, there is no other country interested in prosecuting her...


Iraq has offered.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> I think it comes down to the 'let her rot' type of  justice.


Not ideal but better than no justice.


----------



## Raheem (Feb 28, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Iraq has offered.


Are you sure about this? It doesn't seem especially likely, given that she never went there.


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Are you sure about this? It doesn't seem especially likely, given that she never went there.


Plenty of IS prisoners captured in Syria have been transferred to Iraq by the Kurds for trial. This seems to be largely how the French dealt with their bit of the problem.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 28, 2021)

Be accurate here, Spy. You're not after justice. You're after retribution.


----------



## Athos (Feb 28, 2021)

I'm not particularly bothered about her being punished. But I think any answering for her alleged crimes ought to take place where they were committed. The UK's focus should be on protecting British citizens (which, at one point, included her and her child).


----------



## Spymaster (Feb 28, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Be accurate here, Spy. You're not after justice. You're after retribution.


I think motive is the only substantive difference between the two and in this case if one is done, so will be the other.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Plenty of IS prisoners captured in Syria have been transferred to Iraq by the Kurds for trial. This seems to be largely how the French dealt with their bit of the problem.


So, would it be fair to say that Iraq has not made an offer to prosecute Begum, but they have prosecuted some other IS members, probably mostly not housewives?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 1, 2021)

Raheem said:


> So, would it be fair to say that Iraq has not made an offer to prosecute Begum, but they have prosecuted some other IS members, probably mostly not housewives?


I’ve no idea if that would be fair to say or not. We do know that Iraq have and are, trying and executing prisoners of non-Iraqi nationality that have been held by the Kurds in Syria and we know that French and other nationals are among them. We also know that there have been reports that Iraq and the U.K. have discussed the fates of British detainees there. We don’t know what they’ve said but we do know that they haven’t tried Begum yet. We also know that the ideal outcome would be for her to be tried in either Iraq or Syria.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I’ve no idea. We do know that Iraq have and are, trying and executing prisoners of non-Iraqi nationality that have been held by the Kurds in Syria and we know that French citizens are among them. We also know that there have been reports that Iraq and the U.K. have discussed the fates of British detainees there. We don’t know what they’ve said but we do know that they haven’t tried Begum yet. The ideal outcome would be for her to be tried in either Iraq or Syria.


What happens if she is found not guilty?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 1, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> What happens if she is found not guilty?


Then she should be released, her citizenship reinstated and allowed to return to the U.K. for trial here.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Then she should be released, her citizenship reinstated and allowed to return to the U.K. for trial here.


If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 1, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> If at first you don't succeed, try, try and try again.


Err, not quite. She’d face very different charges here to the ones over there. That’s why all the wallies want to have her tried here.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Then she should be released, her citizenship reinstated and allowed to return to the U.K. for trial here.


Perhaps we could simply swap Priti Patel for her


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 1, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps we could simply swap Priti Patel for her


What have the Kurds done to deserve Patel?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Err, not quite. She’d face very different charges here to the ones over there. That’s why all the wallies want to have her tried here.



Given that most, if not all, of her activities took place elsewhere those seeking to ‘bring her home’ are also seeking to free her from facing any type of trial by those who she allegedly participated in atrocities against.

Western liberalism at its finest: rights for Begum, none for the victims.

Solidarity with the Kurds? All too complicated


----------



## smmudge (Mar 1, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Given that most, if not all, of her activities took place elsewhere those seeking to ‘bring her home’ are also seeking to free her from facing any type of trial by those who she allegedly participated in atrocities against.
> 
> Western liberalism at its finest: rights for Begum, none for the victims.
> 
> Solidarity with the Kurds? All too complicated



I thought the Kurds have mostly been asking govts to repatriate the people held in IS camps? Seems like on the one hand people are disgusted by what IS did to their victims, but on the other they don't give a shit when those victims request we take those people away! Solidarity indeed!!


----------



## Athos (Mar 1, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> What happens if she is found not guilty?



Then she'd be released. Though it'd leave the question of where she would/could go, since the only country she'd have any legal right to enter would be Bangladesh, but they've said they won't let her in.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 1, 2021)

smmudge said:


> I thought the Kurds have mostly been asking govts to repatriate the people held in IS camps?



Can you stick a link in directing me to where the Kurds have asked for those allegedly involved in atrocities to be repatriated and absolved of responsibility for their crimes? TIA


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Can you stick a link in directing me to where the Kurds have asked for those allegedly involved in atrocities to be repatriated and absolved of responsibility for their crimes? TIA


I suspect there are links for your first bit about repatriation but your second about absolution seems unlikely


----------



## smmudge (Mar 1, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Can you stick a link in directing me to where the Kurds have asked for those allegedly involved in atrocities to be repatriated and absolved of responsibility for their crimes? TIA



Seems like you don't really know what the Kurds have asked for at all.

Solidarity.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2021)

.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 1, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Can you stick a link in directing me to where the Kurds have asked for those allegedly involved in atrocities to be repatriated and absolved of responsibility for their crimes? TIA


That's a pretty loaded question. Smmudge is right that the Kurdish authorities have requested help and are keen on the repatriation of foreign nationals held in the camps. They're struggling to keep control and offered an amnesty to thousands of Syrians in the camps in November. They've explicitly asked for help to deal with the situation and the thousands of people that nobody knows what to do with. 

More repatriation calls as killings in Syria camp for ISIS families surge |  | AW


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then she'd be released. Though it'd leave the question of where she would/could go, since the only country she'd have any legal right to enter would be Bangladesh, but they've said they won't let her in.


Fucking Bangladeshis. Flagrant disregard of international law leaving her stateless like that.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 1, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fucking Bangladeshis. Flagrant disregard of international law leaving her stateless like that.


At last the penny drops!


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 1, 2021)

smmudge said:


> Seems like you don't really know what the Kurds have asked for at all.
> 
> Solidarity.



You must be right, because I’ve waded through this thread and missed all reference to what the victims of the atrocities might want to see happen by those calling for her to be sent back to the UK.


----------



## LDC (Mar 1, 2021)

smmudge said:


> Seems like you don't really know what the Kurds have asked for at all.
> 
> Solidarity.



Kurds are not one homogenous block though. What some of the Kurdish authorities in the KRG or NES might want probably has all sorts of political bargaining and manoeuvring as part of it, and I can assure you some of the Kurdish, Arabic, and other people who lived in the areas that were previously held by IS want her and others like her to face justice there.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 1, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> What happens if she is found not guilty?



Fortunately, our Iraqi friends offer a guarrenteed outcome - and it would be wrong to spend public money without being certain of the result.

Who knew that it would be the French who would be proven to be so effective in their outsourcing and  procurement programme?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2021)

This girl and her comrades did most of their murdering raping and tortuting in north west Syria. In anti-assad arab areas and these were the primary victims. She and they ended up in PKK (not 'the kurds') controlled areas after being defeated not because they operated in those areas.


----------



## Athos (Mar 1, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Fucking Bangladeshis. Flagrant disregard of international law leaving her stateless like that.



I don't know what the rolleyes is for; the Bangladeshi government should absolutely be criticised for a flagrant breach of Bangladeshi law, and for making her _de facto _stateless. Whilst you might take a dim view of the UK government being opportunist in exploiting the letter of the law and beating Bangladesh to the punch, the Bangladeshi government has unequivocally behaved unlawfully!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 1, 2021)

fuck it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 1, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> At last the penny drops!


i wouldn't be so sanguine


----------



## maomao (Mar 1, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> This thread is not about the Kurds/Syrians  though is it - it’s about the machinations of the UKG. No one in this thread is arguing that she should be rescued.



Careful. If you don't repeatedly post fantasies about her being hanged or bombed then you can only be demanding that she be immediately returned to the uk and put up in a plush council house at the tax payers expense. There is no room for nuance or complexity in a case like this.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Careful. If you don't repeatedly post fantasies about her being hanged or bombed then you can only be demanding that she be immediately returned to the uk and put up in a plush council house at the tax payers expense. There is no room for nuance or complexity in a case like this.


Don't be silly.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 1, 2021)

For me it's simple. A 'british citizen' is no longer a british citizen when 'we' can find a way to deny that fact...and if there is a way of denying that fact, it calls into question whether they actually were ever a British citizen at all. Which is clearly bollocks regardless of how much we despise terrorists.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 2, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Or a victim.
> 
> What acts of terror did she cause, again?



I seem to remember she was a member of some kind of “ethical court” after she voluntarily left the UK to join ICIS. But I suppose that doesn’t answer your question. I don’t know what first-hand acts of terror she personally caused, but I get the feeling she doesn’t feel too much affinity with Britain and would rather divide than unite. So it’s a no from me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 2, 2021)

Spanner said:


> I seem to remember she was a member of some kind of “ethical court” after she voluntarily left the UK to join ICIS. But I suppose that doesn’t answer your question. I don’t know what first-hand acts of terror she personally caused, but I get the feeling she doesn’t feel too much affinity with Britain and would rather divide than unite. So it’s a no from me.



Plenty of British people don't feel an affinity with Britain. Having a kid like her become some kind of uniting force, through hatred of her, isn't the way forward.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 2, 2021)

There’s a difference between “not feeling an affinity with Britain...” and  “gonna join ISIS to eradicate the non believers in Britain”

She might feel victimised, but she is not a victim. Boo hoo. Don’t flip flop between countries, violate innocents, and come back and claim innocence. 

Also: “don’t hate her” — why not? She seems pretty hostile. In my day, we used to have to prove our worth to other people before we fit in. 









krtek a houby said:


> Plenty of British people don't feel an affinity with Britain. Having a kid like her become some kind of uniting force, through hatred of her, isn't the way forward.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 2, 2021)

Spanner said:


> In my day, we used to have to prove our worth to other people before we fit in.



Sounds like you should appreciate what it's like to get drawn into a cult then.

Unless of course you're just talking bollocks.


----------



## LDC (Mar 2, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> For me it's simple. A 'british citizen' is no longer a british citizen when 'we' can find a way to deny that fact...and if there is a way of denying that fact, it calls into question whether they actually were ever a British citizen at all. Which is clearly bollocks regardless of how much we despise terrorists.



That all sounds a bit mixed up to me. She had the legal status of being a British citizen, so previously was; but then had that status withdrawn, so now isn't. Nobody is denying anything. Being a British citizen is purely a legal position, not some unchanging or unchangeable timeless fact.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 2, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Thanks. What made me think about it was I was talking to a clinical psychologist who was saying that there's increasing research that shows the programs designed for pedophile rehabilitation are increasingly shown not to work, and in some instances even encourage the behaviour and enable them to do things like exchange methods of evading detection. Various suggestions as to why this might be, just thought there might be some interesting possible similarities.


Going somewhat off topic but  you might be interested in Liz Fekete is criticism of far-right de-radicalisation programs in her book _Europe's Fault Lines._ She draws contrasts between these programs and other de-radicalisation programs.


> Such programmes to reset the cognitive behaviour and rewire the thought processes of maladjusted individuals are to be delivered by a Europe-wide industry of professional counter-radicalisation experts. Not only are these experts, some of whom are former neo-Nazis, vetted and promoted by the EC – they explicitly distance themselves from the values of anti-racism and anti-fascism, blaming anti-fascist movements for the unhelpful branding of neo-Nazis as racists and creating a hostile environment that hinders the successful exit from white supremacism.


----------



## LDC (Mar 2, 2021)

redsquirrel said:


> Going somewhat off topic but  you might be interested in Liz Fekete is criticism of far-right de-radicalisation programs in her book _Europe's Fault Lines._ She draws contrasts between these programs and other de-radicalisation programs.



Cheers, that looks interesting. Will look for a PDF/e-book.


----------



## Athos (Mar 2, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That all sounds a bit mixed up to me. She had the legal status of being a British citizen, so previously was; but then had that status withdrawn, so now isn't. Nobody is denying anything. Being a British citizen is purely a legal position, not some unchanging or unchangeable timeless fact.



I guess the point is that it creates a two-tier system of citizenship; for some, it's precarious - it can be removed.

Which, on the face of it, does sound a bit iffy, especially in cases where people haven't chosen to be (or even know they are) dual citizens, and particularly where the effect might be to leave them _de facto_ (if not _de jure_) stateless.  (Though, let's be honest, does anyone really believe that she'd not have gone if she'd understood she would be giving up British citizenship?)

Of course, the obvious argument is 'don't become a terrorist, then', but that doesn't really address all the issues.

First, the scope of the discretion it gives the HS (and the possibility they'll use if for their own political purposes); secondly, the lack of transparency (of the decision and the oversight of it), though most people realise the need to protect sensitive intelligence; thirdly, scope creep - the possibility that the powers will eventually be used for wider purposes (albeit there's no evidence that's occurred to date); fourthly, the social message it sends about belonging; fifthly, the idea that the UK owes the rest of the world that it will deal with terrorists that have been created here; and, finally, the sort of unjust situation it creates - where someone who left a a child is rotting in custody with no prospect of a trial.  (Others are also concerned it was applied in a discriminatory or an unlawful way in Begum's case, though there's no evidence of those things.)

I don't think anyone would suggest the current position is the perfect solution.  But, what would be? Extreme cases like this don't lead to good laws.

One argument is that such individuals should be allowed to return to the UK.  The trouble with that is that, once back, there's insufficient legal mechanisms or practical possibilities to imprison then for any significant time, or otherwise control, or monitor them, such that they could commit atrocities here (and little evidence that they want to be rehabilitated or that deradicalisation works).

So it comes back to the assessment of the risk they pose, which will typically be based on intelligence to which we can't be party.  For any individual the government seeks to strip of their citizenship this could range from the dodgy end of the spectrum e.g. obtained trough torture by foreign regimes; or be reliable e.g. an eyewitness account from an undercover officer, or telephone interception; or a mixture, with or without intelligence 'spin' (politically motivated or otherwise).  One thing's for sure, none of us here have any idea what the intelligence says about the risk she poses.  (Part of that assessment to weigh the risk of all these people being left in one place ready to be liberated if things go south.)

Also, whilst we might have sympathy for the individual, who could be a victim in their own right (especially if young), that doesn't necessarily means there's any less risk.  (Which is what we should be looking at, rather than punishment (where mitigation would be more relevant).)

And where should the line be, anyway?  A 10% chance of them killing one person? A 60% chance of then killing 30?  That they inspire others? Or radicalised them? That they become a rallying point for fellow travellers?

I'd prefer that she be tried and serve any sentence locally.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That all sounds a bit mixed up to me. She had the legal status of being a British citizen, so previously was; but then had that status withdrawn, so now isn't. Nobody is denying anything. Being a British citizen is purely a legal position, not some unchanging or unchangeable timeless fact.



No, it isn't mixed up.
Can _you _have your 'legal status' withdrawn?
Is _your_ nationality purely a legal position?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 2, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> No, it isn't mixed up.
> Can _you _have your 'legal status' withdrawn?
> Is _your_ nationality purely a legal position?


Sort of.  I was an EU national.  Now I'm not.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 2, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Sort of.  I was an EU national.  Now I'm not.


Citizen, maybe...not a National.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2021)

Spanner said:


> In my day, we used to have to prove our worth to other people before we fit in.





Who did you have to prove your worth to?
What were you trying to fit in to?


----------



## Athos (Mar 2, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> No, it isn't mixed up.
> Can _you _have your 'legal status' withdrawn?
> Is _your_ nationality purely a legal position?



Most of what we have - liberty, property, children, bodily autonomy to refuse treatment, etc. - is a legal position insofar as the state could take it away by operation of the law, in the right circumstances.  I'm sure few people think that's ideal, but most think it's the least bad solution to certain problems. And, as yet, nobody here has suggested any solution to a problem like Begum that doesn't have many significant weaknesses.


----------



## LDC (Mar 2, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> No, it isn't mixed up.
> Can _you _have your 'legal status' withdrawn?
> Is _your_ nationality purely a legal position?



I have no idea, I expect in some circumstances I probably could though.

What is making this complicated is this overlapping mix of nationality, a sense of belonging (or not), culture, religion, ethnicity, family heritage, legal status as a citizen, and behaviour and attitudes, all in the context of what would be a difficult case with anyone, let alone her. Then of course all the concerns and dangers for others this process might cause. So I think it's far from simple, as evidenced by these 148 pages.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 2, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Or a victim.
> 
> What acts of terror did she cause, again?



According to "eyewitnesses" she was an enthusiastic member of the morality police.  Not sure how accurate this report is, but its possible that she wasn't "just a housewife " as she claims.









						UK teen Shamima Begum was strict enforcer under Daesh ‘morality police’
					

LONDON: Recent news has emerged regarding Shamima Begum’s life under Daesh, claiming that the UK teenager served under the terror group’s “morality police” and also tried to recruit other young women. The Sunday Telegraph has cited “well-informed” sources alleging that the London-raised teenager...




					arab.news


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 2, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> According to "eyewitnesses" she was an enthusiastic member of the morality police.  Not sure how accurate this report is, but its possible that she wasn't "just a housewife " as she claims.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This came up before in the thread but gets conveniently overlooked or dismissed because it was reported in The Telegraph.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This came up before in the thread but gets conveniently overlooked or dismissed because it was reported in The Telegraph.



Yes, that's what makes me a bit unsure about it.


----------



## A380 (Mar 2, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> No, it isn't mixed up.
> Can _you _have your 'legal status' withdrawn?
> Is _your_ nationality purely a legal position?


Happened to me. I was an EU citizen, and I really liked that, got it taken away overnight and there was nothing I could do about it. 

ETA Elizabeth of York made the same point earlier.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This came up before in the thread but gets conveniently overlooked or dismissed because it was reported in The Telegraph.


We should all maintain a good dose of scepticism about all reports coming from the region. Former ISIS people are denouncing one another all over the place, for a variety of reasons. That said, we know Begum was an enthusiastic member of the death cult and that she willingly took on the role assigned to women in the group. Not sure that is in dispute. 

Personally, I hold her responsible for that, with the caveat that her age when she left provides a degree of mitigation but only a degree. My objections to the UK's actions here have never been about a presumed innocence on the part of Begum.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2021)

A380 said:


> Happened to me. I was an EU citizen, and I really liked that, got it taken away overnight and there was nothing I could do about it.
> 
> ETA Elizabeth of York made the same point earlier.


You weren't made stateless. And that's not comparable anyway. You were never liable for EU jury service or EU military service, nor could you have been. You didn't apply for nor receive your EU passport from an EU Home Office.


----------



## Athos (Mar 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> My objections to the UK's actions here have never been about a presumed innocence on the part of Begum.



I don't like it either.

What would you have had them do, as the law stands (bearing in mind that, if she was allowed back, she'd be free and very difficult to monitor in a very short time)?

Would it make any difference if they're was, say, telephone interception intelligence in which she was heard explaining that it's her intention to come back, do a couple of years in prison, then martyr herself (which wouldn't be admissible in any criminal trial against her)?

For future cases, what should the law say?

Personally, with regard to her, not knowing the intelligence upon which the assessment of risk was based, I can't say whether what the government has done is the lesser of two evils (though, of course, I don't just take the government at its word).

Going forward, we'd have to make a choice between the possibility that some people are amenable to losing their citizenship; or there being other measures e.g. greater surveillance powers, longer sentences, more draconian restrictions on freedom, to control the risk that these individuals pose; or accepting some (potentially many) wholly innocent casualties.

Each has some significant pros and cons. But, if we did end up with the first or second, I'd be keen to limit HS discretion, to ensure really effective oversight, and for there to be the maximum transparency possible in matters of this kind.


----------



## A380 (Mar 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You weren't made stateless. And that's not comparable anyway. You were never liable for EU jury service or EU military service, nor could you have been. You didn't apply for nor receive your EU passport from an EU Home Office.


Just re read my post, and the question it was in response to. I must have missed the point where Statelessness was mentioned,

No one is liable for EU military service. What are you the Daily Mail with some EUSSR Euro army National Service bollocks?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 2, 2021)

A380 said:


> Just re read my post, and the question it was in response to. I must have missed the point where Statelessness was mentioned,



So what, I didn't mention statelessness but the question was asked in the context of this thread and about the UKG making someone stateless by removing their citizenship.

None of us were ever 'EU nationals' and made stateless by brexit, we were always British nationals who enjoyed the benefits of Britain being part of the EU.

The fact is that I can't see this happening to anyone who doesn't have a least one parent born elsewhere. 

...and thinking generally...the only time I can aliken this to in my head is when people used to get transported elsewhere and lost their citizenship forever in many cases. Can anyone think of more recent examples?


----------



## Athos (Mar 2, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> So what, I didn't mention statelessness but the question was asked in the context of this thread and about the UKG making someone stateless by removing their citizenship.



Except it didn't. She's still a legal citizen of Bangladesh, even if *Bangladesh's* actions (which were *unlawful* let's remember) *subsequently* have made her _de facto_ stateless.  For all that it's actions may have been shabby, opportunist, politically motivated, and devisive, the idea that HMG made her stateless is baseless.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Except it didn't. She's still a legal citizen of Bangladesh, even if *Bangladesh's* actions (which were *unlawful* let's remember) *subsequently* have made her _de facto_ stateless.  For all that it's actions may have been shabby, opportunist, politically motivated, and devisive, the idea that HMG made her stateless is baseless.


I’m really not sure how many more times this needs pointing out.


----------



## mihaly (Mar 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't like it either.
> 
> What would you have had them do, as the law stands (bearing in mind that, if she was allowed back, she'd be free and very difficult to monitor in a very short time)?
> 
> ...


 
Whatever you think about the case itself, the Supreme Court decison rules heavily against effective oversight or maximum transparency by setting out how it is only going to deal with narrow technical points and how the Court of Appeal should have done the same.


----------



## Athos (Mar 2, 2021)

mihaly said:


> Whatever you think about the case itself, the Supreme Court decison rules heavily against effective oversight or maximum transparency by setting out how it is only going to deal with narrow technical points and how the Court of Appeal should have done the same.



Yes, it does.  And, whilst I think that was correct as the law stands, I'd like the law to change.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Except it didn't. She's still a legal citizen of Bangladesh, even if *Bangladesh's* actions (which were *unlawful* let's remember) *subsequently* have made her _de facto_ stateless.  For all that it's actions may have been shabby, opportunist, politically motivated, and devisive, the idea that HMG made her stateless is baseless.


And every time you say this, I will call it sophistry, because that is what it is. An attempt to hide behind a perceived technicality in one part of one country's laws that ignores parts of the law in this country that prohibit exactly this kind of discrimination.

You paint this as if it were black and white. It's not.

Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And every time you say this, I will call it sophistry, because that is what it is. An attempt to hide behind a perceived technicality in one part of one country's laws that ignores parts of the law in this country that prohibit exactly this kind of discrimination.
> 
> You paint this as if it were black and white. It's not.
> 
> Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?


it's like t.j. hooker said, there're a million shades of grey


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I’m really not sure how many more times this needs pointing out.


until littlebabyjesus can be brought to accept it, so several more years yet


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 2, 2021)

[QUOTE="littlebabyjesus, post: 16991892, member: 32628]

Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?
[/QUOTE]
It not a question of accepting it or 'pulling a fast one'. It's a matter of law and in that respect it absolutely is _black and white_ no matter how much a couple of Bangadeshi politicians pretend otherwise.


----------



## Athos (Mar 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And every time you say this, I will call it sophistry, because that is what it is. An attempt to hide behind a perceived technicality in one part of one country's laws that ignores parts of the law in this country that prohibit exactly this kind of discrimination.
> 
> You paint this as if it were black and white. It's not.
> 
> Do you think the UK govt or courts would accept this as legal and proper if the roles were reversed and it were Bangladesh attempting to pull a legal fast one on the UK?



It's not a 'technicality', it's just what Bangladeshi law says, I'm afraid.

And nothing about the decision breaches domestic law, as the courts have decided.  I presume you're referring to your idea that this amounts to indirect discrimination, but (even if you could make a _prima facie _case) you seem to have overlooked s.19(2)(d) Equality Act 2010, which says it's not of its a proportionate means of pursuing a legitimate aim.

And, yes, there are a number of very analogous examples of HMG being constrained from doing what it wants by the UK courts on the basis of foreign law.  Most pertinently, those individuals over 21 from whom HMG has not been able to strip British citizenship because their Bangladeshi citizenship has lapsed under Bangladeshi law!

As much as some try to obfuscate (largely based on misunderstanding the law), the legal position (or at least that aspect of it*) really is 'black and white'.

*If she wins her appeal (which, quite possibly, she should - I can't say if the HS applied the test correctly), it won't be on the basis that HMG made her stateless i.e. she wasn't a citizen of Bangladesh.

You may well think the law should be different (though I note you didn't address my post - repeated below - where I asked what you thought it should be); you may well think HMG has acted grubbily and/or opportunistically and/or self-intetestedly (I'd agree); you may well think that the outcome is far from ideal (I'd agree in many respects); but, to keep asserting that HMG has acted unlawfully (by making her stateless) is silly.  If she's stateless, it's _de facto_, and the result of Bangladesh's subsequent unlawul action.



Athos said:


> I don't like it either.
> 
> What would you have had them do, as the law stands (bearing in mind that, if she was allowed back, she'd be free and very difficult to monitor in a very short time)?
> 
> ...


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 2, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Also: “don’t hate her” — why not? She seems pretty hostile. In my day, we used to have to prove our worth to other people before we fit in.



Ok, spanner


----------



## scifisam (Mar 2, 2021)

The fact that she was a minor when she left should have been taken into consideration when revoking her citizenship, like it is with other punishments. There wouldn't be nearly as much debate if this were an adult we were talking about. 

Though if she were over 21 she wouldn't have been entitled to Bangladeshi citizenship at all, so her age was actually used against her.

Her baby, the one that died after she appealed to come back, was also a minor, and a British citizen.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 3, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Sounds like you should appreciate what it's like to get drawn into a cult then.
> 
> Unless of course you're just talking bollocks.



Good point, well made!


----------



## Spanner (Mar 3, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Who did you have to prove your worth to?
> What were you trying to fit in to?



No-one in particular, and nothing in particular.

I was generalising about societal norms, e.g. don’t shit on your own doorstep on your way out and complain about the smell when you get back.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 3, 2021)

Spanner said:


> No-one in particular, and nothing in particular.
> 
> I was generalising about societal norms, e.g. don’t shit on your own doorstep on your way out and complain about the smell when you get back.



Ah, you're doing parody.

So hard to tell these days.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 3, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Ah, you're doing parody.
> 
> So hard to tell these days.



Not at all. 

If I was doing parody, I’d say: “These days, you’ll get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you’re English”


----------



## Athos (Mar 3, 2021)

scifisam said:


> The fact that she was a minor when she left should have been taken into consideration when revoking her citizenship, like it is with other punishments.



Her age may well have been taken into consideration (but been outweighed by other factors). We don't know the detail of why the HS decided what he did.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 3, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Not at all.
> 
> If I was doing parody, I’d say: “These days, you’ll get arrested and thrown in jail if you say you’re English”



You can tell things are shifting when old Stewart Lee routines seem to have lost all meaning in the current conditions....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Her age may well have been taken into consideration (but been outweighed by other factors). We don't know the detail of why the HS decided what he did.


Oh Javid no doubt weighed everything up and took this decision having consulted the wisest of counsels. 

Good grief.

 'She's under 21 so we can ditch her.' That's the only way her age was weighed.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 3, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Oh Javid no doubt weighed everything up and took this decision having consulted the wisest of counsels.
> 
> Good grief.
> 
> 'She's under 21 so we can ditch her.' That's the only way her age was weighed.



How do you account for her UK citizenship _not _being revoked the day she turned 18?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2021)

kebabking said:


> How do you account for her UK citizenship _not _being revoked the day she turned 18?


The government and all their horses and women and men were busy that day and it slipped down their to do list


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 3, 2021)

Spanner said:


> In my day, we used to have to prove our worth to other people before we fit in.


how's that going for you here, proving your worth?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 3, 2021)

kebabking said:


> How do you account for her UK citizenship _not _being revoked the day she turned 18?


I don't. 

But this attitude of deference to power displayed by Athos and others is exactly how we lose our liberties. In this case it is deference to a disgusting reactionary rw Tory power.


----------



## Athos (Mar 3, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't.
> 
> But this attitude of deference to power displayed by Athos and others is exactly how we lose our liberties. In this case it is deference to a disgusting reactionary rw Tory power.



Lol, that's desperate.

I've said quite clearly that I don't trust government, and that it's quite possible that the decision was influenced by political self-intetest.  Which is why I'd like to see a lot more scrutiny, oversight, and transparency.  But you've fallen into the trap of thinking that my enemy's enemy is my friend.

And, for all your bluster, it remains the case that you've no idea what the intelligence says about the risk she poses, and how that was weighed against all the other factors.

You just keep spouting misdirected smears,  unevidenced claims, liberal sentiment, and (at best) half-understood bits of law.  It's embarrassing.

Especially as you've still offered nothing of substance about what should have happened, what the consequences of that might be, and how you'd mitigate them.


----------



## Dystopiary (Mar 4, 2021)

I agree with this, that she was essentially trafficked:  
 

Also, she can't really turn around and say "Yeah, it's been terrible. I hate IS" in her circumstances. She'd probably be shot in the head at best. 

As for stripping of citizenship being only relevant to people who've done really terrible things, I'm just not sure but I wouldn't be too complacent. 
 - https://www.cage.ngo/citizenship-deprivations-what-you-need-to-know 

"In 2002, 2006 and 2014 [the UK goverment] significantly broadened ministerial powers to revoke citizenship. As a result, it has been suggested that ‘UK governments now have at their disposal laws to strip citizenship that are arguably broader than those possessed by any other Western democratic State’. Despite this, in October 2015, the British government announced a proposal to further expand the grounds for citizenship deprivation." 
-  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/twentyfirst-century-banishment-citizenship-stripping-in-common-law-nations/F9B6D2F963EC73BD522A5EEE22493816


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 4, 2021)

O’Brien describes the citizenship-stripping of Begum as a punishment, which it isn’t, either literally or in its function.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 4, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> how's that going for you here, proving your worth?



The important word is — of course — “here”.

I don’t need to prove my worth “here”.

“Here” is important to you because: I just clicked on your name. You’ve posted 193,000+ times on this forum.

That’s quite the investment!

I’d congratulate you, but in the back of my mind I’m worrying: “This guy has spent months..years...writing stuff on someone else’s platform. What if the owner of this website simply sells up and retires? Or maybe dies unexpectedly of a Massive Stroke. Or, or or, etc. That would be Pickman’s life’s work, legacy, microphone and raisin d’etre gone. Pfff.”

You might be a big cheese “here”, mate, but your opinions or bullying words have no affect on me.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> I’d congratulate you, but in the back of my mind I’m worrying: “This guy has spent months..years...writing stuff on someone else’s platform. What if the owner of this website simply sells up and retires? Or maybe dies unexpectedly of a Massive Stroke. Or, or or, etc. That would be Pickman’s life’s work, legacy, microphone and raisin d’etre gone. Pfff.”



Sounds like sour grapes


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> The important word is — of course — “here”.
> 
> I don’t need to prove my worth “here”.
> 
> ...


I'm not a big cheese anywhere. How is my question in any way bullying?

I reckon it's more a case of you have no worth to show hiding behind your bold assertion you don't need to prove your worth.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2021)

Dystopiary said:


> As for stripping of citizenship being only relevant to people who've done really terrible things, I'm just not sure but I wouldn't be too complacent.
> - Citizenship Deprivations: What you need to know - CAGE
> 
> "In 2002, 2006 and 2014 [the UK goverment] significantly broadened ministerial powers to revoke citizenship. As a result, it has been suggested that ‘UK governments now have at their disposal laws to strip citizenship that are arguably broader than those possessed by any other Western democratic State’. Despite this, in October 2015, the British government announced a proposal to further expand the grounds for citizenship deprivation."
> -  https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-and-comparative-law-quarterly/article/twentyfirst-century-banishment-citizenship-stripping-in-common-law-nations/F9B6D2F963EC73BD522A5EEE22493816



The CAGE article is largely an opinion piece by an interest group and there's plenty to take issue with in there, not least their characterisation of citizenship-stripping as racist because it 'targets people of different _ethnicity'_. It doesn't. It's people of dual _nationality. _Looks like that's been written by a U75 poster.

James O'Brien is a conceited knob.

The Cambridge piece looks like it might be worth reading later.


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not a big cheese anywhere. How is my question in any way bullying?


"...mate..."


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 4, 2021)

Dystopiary said:


> I agree with this, that she was essentially trafficked:
> 
> 
> Also, she can't really turn around and say "Yeah, it's been terrible. I hate IS" in her circumstances. She'd probably be shot in the head at best.
> ...





If you're ever unsure of the correct position to take on an issue it always helps to consult James O'Brien, check out what that massive intellect is thinking on the issue, then take the opposite stance.



Since 2002, 2006 or 2014 has the government stripped anyone of their UK citizenship for anything other than terrorism related shit?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> The important word is — of course — “here”.
> 
> I don’t need to prove my worth “here”.



post #32

Not long for this forum.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If you're ever unsure of the correct position to take on an issue it always helps to consult James O'Brien, check out what that massive intellect is thinking on the issue, then take the opposite stance.
> 
> 
> 
> Since 2002, 2006 or 2014 has the government stripped anyone of their UK citizenship for anything other than terrorism related shit?



Yes. At least one for noncing.

ETA - And three of the Rochdale groomers, I think; stripped of British citizenship so they could be deported to Pakistan after release from prison (though I don't think that's actually happened).


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> O’Brien describes the citizenship-stripping of Begum as a punishment, which it isn’t, either literally or in its function.


There may be a multiplicity of reasons for the decision, but generally restricting freedom is regarded as one form of punishment, isn't it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes. At least one for noncing.



Scrap it then, it's clearly victimising people.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Scrap it then, it's clearly victimising people.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes. At least one for noncing.


His citizenship was stripped on the grounds that he had lied on his application form rather than for the sexual abuse he was found guilty of.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> His citizenship was stripped on the grounds that he had lied on his application form rather than for the sexual abuse he was found guilty of.



I think you're technically right (albeit the lie was about the abuse).  But, see my edit: I understand others have been stripped for the abuse itself, since then (though I don't know enough if the detail, yet).


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think you're right (albeit the lie was about the abuse).  But, see my edit: I understand others have been stripped for the abuse itself, since then (though I don't know enough if the detail, yet).


May said she'd stripped them of citizenship 5 years ago but they're still in a UK prison. Sounds like showboating without wanting to put it to the test.

I'd happily see them castrated but I'm absolutely against them having their citizenship revoked because as with Begum it has an impact not confined to the individual being punished.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> May said she'd stripped them of citizenship 5 years ago but they're still in a UK prison. Sounds like showboating without wanting to put it to the test.
> 
> I'd happily see them castrated but I'm absolutely against them having their citizenship revoked because as with Begum it has an impact not confined to the individual being punished.



They've had it stripped (and that decision upheld on appeal).

They wouldn't have been deported before serving their sentences in any event.   But they're now out of prison, but yet to be deported; I don't know why that is, but I guess they're trying to pursue other appeals.

I get what you're saying, but the idea of leveling-up Pakistani child rapists' rights to those of solely British sex offenders is a hard sell. I suspect most people would happily see them all dropped in the sea, regardless of nationality.

And the government probably raises that, and will use these unsympathetic subjects to push the boundaries of how the provision is used.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> I suspect most people would happily see them all dropped in the sea, regardless of nationality.


Most white people, or people with all white families, who aren't affected by the narrative of 'not really British', probably would.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Most white people, or people with all white families, who aren't affected by the narrative of 'not really British', probably would.



In my experience, people of all ethnicities have limited sympathy for child rapists.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Most white people, or people with all white families, who aren't affected by the narrative of 'not really British', probably would.


Put Ian Huntley and, back in the day, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley on the flight too and millions of all hues would have applauded


----------



## Dystopiary (Mar 4, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> O’Brien describes the citizenship-stripping of Begum as a punishment, which it isn’t, either literally or in its function.





Spymaster said:


> James O'Brien is a conceited knob.





Bahnhof Strasse said:


> If you're ever unsure of the correct position to take on an issue it always helps to consult James O'Brien, check out what that massive intellect is thinking on the issue, then take the opposite stance.



I wasn't citing O'Brien, but the guy replying to him: 
"A child convinced to be an adult "wife". Their "little secret, don't tell your parents". Trafficked by a dark-money network over borders, locked in a house with other girls for weeks, handed to an adult man to be sexual reward for his loyalty. Trafficking. Pure and simple." 

I don't know why it settles on the original post rather than the reply when clicking a twitter link, even though the URL is different.


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> In my experience, people of all ethnicities have limited sympathy for child rapists.


What part of me wanting them castrated did you think indicated sympathy?


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> What part of me wanting them castrated did you think indicated sympathy?



I don't think you do; I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that.  I think you misunderstood my point, so I'll try to explain it better.

Some people defend this power on the basis that its use is limited to (suspected) terrorists. But I'm suspicious that the government will try to use it in other cases (there's nothing in the legislation itself that precludes that). And that, somewhat cynically, it'll use sex offenders as the test cases for that, because people* are unlikely to campaign to keep them here, regardless of the bigger principle at stake.

* crucially, even those from communities likely to be disproportionately affected by the expansion of this power.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 4, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not a big cheese anywhere. How is my question in any way bullying?


You highlighted his stupidity


Pickman's model said:


> Put Ian Huntley and, back in the day, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley on the flight too and millions of all hues would have applauded


A lot of liberals would not agree. They stuck up for those two ( Brady and especially Hindley).


----------



## TopCat (Mar 4, 2021)

I am not a judge. I don’t have to be fair. I have no sympathy for Begum after watching her being interviewed and listening to her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2021)

TopCat said:


> You highlighted his stupidity


  


> A lot of liberals would not agree. They stuck up for those two.


yeh littlebabyjesus et al would have been apoplectic


----------



## TopCat (Mar 4, 2021)

What would Stalin do?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2021)

TopCat said:


> What would Stalin do?


Hand out tickets for a one-way trip to the Arctic death camps of Kolyma


----------



## Doodler (Mar 4, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Funnily enough, I actually once had a number of different "manuals" like that from all over the political spectrum. Along with a digital copy of what purported to be the Anarchist Cookbook, I had something called the White Resistance Manual (which honestly was probably the most serious document of the lot) and something else entitled, IIRC, the CIA Book of Dirty Tricks (despite the title the author seemed to be a leftist). This was around about the same time I had a paper copy of an "SAS" survival guide, which as well as teaching stuff about wilderness survival like making shelters and building traps, also had a section on _how to sneak up on people and slit their fucking throats_. That was in a book I bought legitimately from a shop and everything. Fortunately or unfortunately, I lost the hard drive I kept them on, and the SAS book got lost when I moved house at some point.
> 
> I definitely would not feel safe openly searching up this kind of stuff nowadays, although I reckon you could probably still get your hands on them by hanging around the right Walter Mitty circles.



The old Loompanics mail order book catalogue was full of that stuff. One of their survivalist/self-sufficiency books was titled 'Where there is no dentist'.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 4, 2021)

Doodler said:


> The old Loompanics mail order book catalogue was full of that stuff. One of their survivalist/self-sufficiency books was titled 'Where there is no dentist'.


Gunrunning for fun and profit
A load of these books are on the internet archive, eg muckrakers manual


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes. At least one for noncing.
> 
> ETA - And three of the Rochdale groomers, I think; stripped of British citizenship so they could be deported to Pakistan after release from prison (though I don't think that's actually happened).


We're back on the whataboutery tack again, I presume these three arseholes hold British citizenship by birth and not naturalisation? If so then they shouldn't be stripped of their British citizenship either. No matter how vile particular individuals are then you can't use justify punishing them as an argument for potentially stripping rights from others.
Like Begum's fate I truly don't care about the fate of these three, Personally I would keep them locked up for the rest of their lives and if other prisoners decide to take a homemade shiv to them, not going to lose any sleep over it but the principle of stripping someone of their citizenship is just one I can't get behind.
It's different if citizenship was acquired by naturalisation (ie a personal decision to seek it) rather than birth. then Yes there is an argument for losing it (even if it does render you stateless because you may have surrendered your original one).


----------



## Doodler (Mar 4, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Gunrunning for fun and profit
> A load of these books are on the internet archive, eg muckrakers manual



The author of "Gunrunning ....' was Ragnar Benson. According to Wikipedia: 'As of 1999, he lived "...on nine acres in southern Idaho with his pet skunks and his wife and 100-plus guns of varying caliber." '


----------



## LDC (Mar 4, 2021)

Bloody hell, Loompanics, that's a blast from the past!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2021)

Dystopiary said:


> I wasn't citing O'Brien, but the guy replying to him:
> "A child convinced to be an adult "wife". Their "little secret, don't tell your parents". Trafficked by a dark-money network over borders, locked in a house with other girls for weeks, handed to an adult man to be sexual reward for his loyalty. Trafficking. Pure and simple."



Oh. Well that's just hyperbolic guff.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> We're back on the whataboutery tack again, I presume these three arseholes hold British citizenship by birth and not naturalisation? If so then they shouldn't be stripped of their British citizenship either. No matter how vile particular individuals are then you can't use justify punishing them as an argument for potentially stripping rights from others.
> Like Begum's fate I truly don't care about the fate of these three, Personally I would keep them locked up for the rest of their lives and if other prisoners decide to take a homemade shiv to them, not going to lose any sleep over it but the principle of stripping someone of their citizenship is just one I can't get behind.
> It's different if citizenship was acquired by naturalisation (ie a personal decision to seek it) rather than birth. then Yes there is an argument for losing it (even if it does render you stateless because you may have surrendered your original one).



I don't know how they came by British citizenship.  But I understand your position re not strpping citizenship by birth in any circumstances.  Though we ought to frank about the consequences of that e.g. an increased risk that more kids will be raped here.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> We're back on the whataboutery tack again, I presume these three arseholes hold British citizenship by birth and not naturalisation? If so then they shouldn't be stripped of their British citizenship either. No matter how vile particular individuals are then you can't use justify punishing them as an argument for potentially stripping rights from others.
> Like Begum's fate I truly don't care about the fate of these three, Personally I would keep them locked up for the rest of their lives and if other prisoners decide to take a homemade shiv to them, not going to lose any sleep over it but the principle of stripping someone of their citizenship is just one I can't get behind.
> It's different if citizenship was acquired by naturalisation (ie a personal decision to seek it) rather than birth. then Yes there is an argument for losing it (even if it does render you stateless because you may have surrendered your original one).


It's a pretty simple situation for me. You do not weaponise a person's ethnicity against them. Ever. That principle is of course only really tested in the case of bad people, but if it doesn't also stand for bad people then it's not a principle at all. It's not so different from posting rules on here. The Home Office would fail Urban's 'don't be a dick' rule.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 4, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a pretty simple situation for me. You do not weaponise a person's ethnicity against them. Ever. That principle is of course only really tested in the case of bad people, but if it doesn't also stand for bad people then it's not a principle at all. It's not so different from posting rules on here. The Home Office would fail Urban's 'don't be a dick' rule.



Except it's _not _ethnicity. It's nationality.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 4, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Except it's _not _ethnicity. It's nationality.


He won’t hear you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 4, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Except it's _not _ethnicity. It's nationality.


See that's where the 'being a dick' bit comes in, imo. It is using her Bangladeshi ancestry against her without her having done any action to push herself towards Bangladeshi nationality. That's ethnicity.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's a pretty simple situation for me. You do not weaponise a person's ethnicity against them. Ever. That principle is of course only really tested in the case of bad people, but if it doesn't also stand for bad people then it's not a principle at all. It's not so different from posting rules on here. The Home Office would fail Urban's 'don't be a dick' rule.



Where do you stand on the deportation of (solely) foreign nationals?


----------



## TopCat (Mar 4, 2021)

Plenty of republicans in the UK got booted out to Ireland in the past. It’s not a new thing and the libs never gave a damn about the war there.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 4, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See that's where the 'being a dick' bit comes in, imo. It is using her Bangladeshi ancestry against her without her having done any action to push herself towards Bangladeshi nationality. That's ethnicity.



No it's not.

Nationality is _not _ethnicity.. she could be as white European as newly fallen snow, if one of her parents was born in Bangladesh then she would be in _exactly _the same legal position that she is now.


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 4, 2021)

kebabking said:


> Except it's _not _ethnicity. It's nationality.


Yes of course and there are plenty of people in this country who have dual citizenship with 'nice' countries, It's just that all the current cases in the news are of people who hold dual citizenship with places that are largely shitholes and there seems to be a certain mentality of let's punish them further by packing them off there. But the principle should still stand. It doesn't matter whether your other citizenship is Canadian, Irish, Sudanese, Pakistani or Syrian, if your British citizenship was acquired by birth (and the legal process by which that happens is clearly defined) then you can't lose it.


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 4, 2021)

kebabking said:


> No it's not.
> 
> Nationality is _not _ethnicity.. she could be as white European as newly fallen snow, if one of her parents was born in Bangladesh then she would be in _exactly _the same legal position that she is now.


Well technically Yes but I suspect blond blue-eyed Bangladeshi are rarer than hen's teeth.
And a slight edit to that being born in Bangladesh does not grant you Bangladeshi citizenship if neither of your parents are citizens.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

kebabking said:


> No it's not.
> 
> Nationality is _not _ethnicity.. she could be as white European as newly fallen snow, if one of her parents was born in Bangladesh then she would be in _exactly _the same legal position that she is now.



I guess the argument is that this law is more likely to affect ethnic minorities, and he believes such indirect discrimination isn't justifiable in any circumstances. Is that your position littlebabyjesus?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> I guess the argument is that this law is more likely to affect ethnic minorities, and he believes such indirect discrimination isn't justifiable in any circumstances. Is that your position littlebabyjesus?


Talk about chucking a drowning man a lifeline!


----------



## maomao (Mar 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> I guess the argument is that this law is more likely to affect ethnic minorities, and he believes such indirect discrimination isn't justifiable in any circumstances. Is that your position littlebabyjesus?


It clearly meets the legal definition of indirect racial discrimination.


----------



## Athos (Mar 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> It clearly meets the legal definition of indirect racial discrimination.



It doesn't.

A dual national considered to be a danger to public safety who is racially Bangladeshi wouldn't be in a worse position than one who was, say, racially European.  (The comparator should have materially the same circumstances, but for protected characteristic, as per s.23 Equality Act 2010, as detailed in the explanatory note, and reiterated by the Supreme Court in _Essop_.)

And even if it was _prima facie _indirect discrimination, it'd fall foul of s.19(2)(d), as it's a proportionate means (it only affects a tiny minority of dual nationals) to achieve a legitimate aim (public safety).

Also, even if you could show a disproportionate applicability by race, any argument that this is indirect discrimination against those with dual nationality who haven't been stripped of British citizenship would fail because they wouldn't satisfy the criteria of that they have been/will be put at a  disadvantage (s.19(2)(c)).


----------



## Spanner (Mar 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm not a big cheese anywhere. How is my question in any way bullying?
> 
> I reckon it's more a case of you have no worth to show hiding behind your bold assertion you don't need to prove your worth.



1. why is it a “bold assertion” that I don’t need to prove my worth to people I don’t know in a public forum? I’m not inviting you round for Christmas dinner.
2. when you tell someone they “have no worth to show”, that could be construed as another example of bullying, or at least some kind of intimidation tactic, e.g. “don’t pick a fight with the big cheese”
3. which leads me back to the fromage. Anyone with as much history in a place as yours is likely to be seen as an elder, influencer, or dare I say it — an untouchable. That’s your platform, mate, and you know it as well as I do. That is your bully pulpit.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 5, 2021)

Christmas dinner


----------



## TopCat (Mar 5, 2021)

Spanner said:


> 1. why is it a “bold assertion” that I don’t need to prove my worth to people I don’t know in a public forum? I’m not inviting you round for Christmas dinner.
> 2. when you tell someone they “have no worth to show”, that could be construed as another example of bullying, or at least some kind of intimidation tactic, e.g. “don’t pick a fight with the big cheese”
> 3. which leads me back to the fromage. Anyone with as much history in a place as yours is likely to be seen as an elder, influencer, or dare I say it — an untouchable. That’s your platform, mate, and you know it as well as I do. That is your bully pulpit.


Mate, you are a dick.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 5, 2021)

TopCat said:


> Mate, you are a dick.



Tool, surely?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 5, 2021)

It'll be a wrench when he leaves.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 5, 2021)

Don't hammer him.


----------



## Athos (Mar 5, 2021)

Screw him, he's nuts!


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Screw him, he's nuts!


That’s plane to see.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 5, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That’s plane to see.



Yeah, we all saw that.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 5, 2021)

Spanner said:


> 1. why is it a “bold assertion” that I don’t need to prove my worth to people I don’t know in a public forum? I’m not inviting you round for Christmas dinner.
> 2. when you tell someone they “have no worth to show”, that could be construed as another example of bullying, or at least some kind of intimidation tactic, e.g. “don’t pick a fight with the big cheese”
> 3. which leads me back to the fromage. Anyone with as much history in a place as yours is likely to be seen as an elder, influencer, or dare I say it — an untouchable. That’s your platform, mate, and you know it as well as I do. That is your bully pulpit.


Could have said stupid assertion, but I thought I'd be nice and say bold assertion. For someone who thinks people should prove their worth in communities in which they move you've a very peculiar attitude in which other people have to show their value but you don't. Xmas dinner? Many friendships have started here and indeed relationships and families. Don't make out this is some lesser version of reality, or you'll really show how worthless (or worthy) you are.

You keep making out I'm a big cheese and I'm trying to intimidate you. I am not a big cheese. There are better respected posters here than me. There are angrier posters here than me. And frankly there are posters who know more about cheese here than me. I'm not seen as an elder, an influencer, an untouchable. That's you projecting your views onto me rather than looking at any actual evidence.

I don't think you'll last long here, because you seem determined to make yourself obnoxious. Not up to me of course whether you sink or swim here. But you're the one tying lead weights to your feet


----------



## bimble (Mar 5, 2021)

i dont know what talkradio is (probably the radio equivalent of the DM?) But wtf is going on here, is 'strip em of their british citizenship' a new kind of fantasy punishment for people we don't like? That seems.. ungreat.


----------



## Serge Forward (Mar 5, 2021)

It's an oft repeated comment found in the comments sections on local newspaper websites, spouted by the fashy elements there. "Strip their citizenship and deport them" basically goes with the far right territory.


----------



## Cerv (Mar 5, 2021)

bimble said:


> i dont know what talkradio is (probably the radio equivalent of the DM?) But wtf is going on here, is 'strip em of their british citizenship' a new kind of fantasy punishment for people we don't like? That seems.. ungreat.
> View attachment 257364



angry talk radio listeners want to go around gifting people British citizenship just so they can immediately take it away.
that'll show 'em!


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 6, 2021)

Her mental state must be wrecked you know. the interviews showed that he might not be on top of her life.

/stirs the pot
/stands back


----------



## Spanner (Mar 6, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Tool, surely?





Spymaster said:


> It'll be a wrench when he leaves.





ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't hammer him.





Athos said:


> Screw him, he's nuts!





Spymaster said:


> That’s plane to see.


Clever stuff from clearly the brightest minds in the country. Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.


----------



## nogojones (Mar 6, 2021)

Spanner said:


> 3. which leads me back to the fromage. Anyone with as much history in a place as yours is likely to be seen as an elder,* influencer*, .....



What's your Instagram Pickman's model? I wanna see your influencer flex


----------



## Spanner (Mar 6, 2021)

Interesting that this many people are so angry about their little online forum being polluted by someone who doesn’t share their self-congratulatory opinions that they pile in and give it: “he’s called spanner, let’s call him a tool, lol”.


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 6, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Clever stuff from clearly the brightest minds in the country. Yeah, you hit the nail on the head.



That's the spirit (level)!


----------



## weltweit (Mar 6, 2021)

Thread needed a poll ..


----------



## ice-is-forming (Mar 6, 2021)

nogojones said:


> What's your Instagram Pickman's model? I wanna see your influencer flex



Riveting stuff but I heard he's a disrupter!


----------



## Spanner (Mar 6, 2021)

> Could have said stupid assertion, but I thought I'd be nice and say bold assertion. For someone who thinks people should prove their worth in communities in which they move you've a very peculiar attitude in which other people have to show their value but you don't. Xmas dinner? Many friendships have started here and indeed relationships and families. Don't make out this is some lesser version of reality, or you'll really show how worthless (or worthy) you are.
> 
> You keep making out I'm a big cheese and I'm trying to intimidate you. I am not a big cheese. There are better respected posters here than me. There are angrier posters here than me. And frankly there are posters who know more about cheese here than me. I'm not seen as an elder, an influencer, an untouchable. That's you projecting your views onto me rather than looking at any actual evidence.
> 
> I don't think you'll last long here, because you seem determined to make yourself obnoxious. Not up to me of course whether you sink or swim here. But you're the one tying lead weights to your feet


As usual you lead with insults: peculiar...worthless...obnoxious.
Good job I’m comfortable with myself, mate. Because those words are pretty nasty.


----------



## Athos (Mar 6, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Interesting that this many people are so angry about their little online forum being polluted by someone who doesn’t share their self-congratulatory opinions that they pile in and give it: “he’s called spanner, let’s call him a tool, lol”.



It's not that, so much as the fact you come across like a complete knob.


----------



## RedRedRose (Mar 6, 2021)

Can we stop with the feuding and personal spats. This is a good thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2021)

Spanner said:


> As usual you lead with insults: peculiar...worthless...obnoxious.
> Good job I’m comfortable with myself, mate. Because those words are pretty nasty.


pity you're not comfortable with other people, and that's a problem on discussion boards


----------



## klang (Mar 6, 2021)

.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2021)

littleseb said:


> .


Good point well made


----------



## klang (Mar 6, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Good point well made


it's only a small point but is worth repeating:
.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 6, 2021)

littleseb said:


> it's only a small point but is worth repeating:
> .


small but perfectly formed


----------



## Spanner (Mar 10, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> pity you're not comfortable with other people, and that's a problem on discussion boards


I’m very comfortable with other people. Almost all of them


----------



## Spanner (Mar 10, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's not that, so much as the fact you come across like a complete knob.


Complete knobbishness meaning disagreeing with — and questioning — opinions I don’t agree with?


----------



## Athos (Mar 10, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Complete knobbishness meaning disagreeing with — and questioning — opinions I don’t agree with?


No, lots of people have managed to disagree on this thread without being knobs.  What makes you a knob is how you've gone about it.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, lots of people have managed to disagree on this thread without being knobs.


A lot of them are knobs too though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2021)

Spanner said:


> I’m very comfortable with other people. Almost all of them


So I see


----------



## TopCat (Mar 10, 2021)

Can she come back now Piers Morgan has quit?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2021)

TopCat said:


> Can she come back now Piers Morgan has quit?


They will have to duel with archaic pistols at dawn


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 10, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> A lot of them are knobs too though.



Knobs can be wound tight by spanners.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 10, 2021)

Just torx it over guys.


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 10, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Knobs can be wound tight by spanners.


Nuts


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 10, 2021)

Should we ask Sprocket. what he thinks about the latest developments on this thread?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Should we ask Sprocket. what he thinks about the latest developments on this thread?


Yes, if anyone has an authoritative opinion it will be him


----------



## Sprocket. (Mar 10, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, if anyone has an authoritative opinion it will be him


My smug days regarding engineering have passed.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Mar 19, 2021)

> In a ruling on Thursday, Mr Justice Chamberlain said that the removing of their citizenship had made them stateless.
> 
> He said: "C3, C4 and C7 have persuaded us that, on the dates when the decisions and the orders in their cases were made, they were not nationals of Bangladesh or any other state apart from the UK.
> 
> ...












						Three British-Bangladeshis who ‘joined Isis in Syria’ win appeal against removal of UK citizenship
					

‘Secretary of state had no power to make orders’, judge rules




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## maomao (Mar 19, 2021)

Rutita1 said:


> Three British-Bangladeshis who ‘joined Isis in Syria’ win appeal against removal of UK citizenship
> 
> 
> ‘Secretary of state had no power to make orders’, judge rules
> ...


Have they cleared this decision with Athos ?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 19, 2021)

We need to see the grounds on which the decision was made.

Begum's case was tested by the the highest court and failed.


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

maomao said:


> Have they cleared this decision with Athos ?



Ironically, this decision bolsters the case against Begum.  Their lawyers explicitly argued that they ceased to be Bangladeshi citizens when they reached 21, such that the decision to strip then of British citizenship after that date left them stateless (whereas Begum hadn't reached 21, and so was still a Bangladeshi citizen).


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Begum's case was tested by the the highest court and failed.



It wasn't, the substantive appeal is still to be heard (the Supreme Court just decided that she's not allowed back to pursue it).


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 19, 2021)

Athos said:


> Ironically, this decision bolsters the case against Begum.  Their lawyers explicitly argued that they ceased to be Bangladeshi citizens when they reached 21, such that the decision to strip then of British citizenship after that date left them stateless (whereas Begum hadn't reached 21, and so was still a Bangladeshi citizen).


Not the killer post someone thought it would be then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 19, 2021)

To those of you cheering along the Begum decision, are you not even a tiny bit ashamed of yourselves for supporting the idea that her case should be treated differently due to her extreme youth?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To those of you cheering along the Begum decision, are you not even a tiny bit ashamed of yourselves for supporting the idea that her case should be treated differently due to her extreme youth?


Extreme youths are infants

Part of the issue seems to be her being an extremist youth


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To those of you cheering along the Begum decision, are you not even a tiny bit ashamed of yourselves for supporting the idea that her case should be treated differently due to her extreme youth?



For the record, in case it needs saying again, I'm not "cheering along" the decision. My position remains: First, that I have a number of criticisms of this law; secondly, that this isn't my preferred outcome in this particular case; but, third, that the claims that the HS acted unlawfully/that Begum's not a Bangladeshi citizen (for the purposes of English law) advanced by some here aren't legally sound (albeit it's not impossible that her lawyers are able to advance some good arguments later, such that her substantive appeal will succeed).


----------



## kebabking (Mar 19, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To those of you cheering along the Begum decision, are you not even a tiny bit ashamed of yourselves for supporting the idea that her case should be treated differently due to her extreme youth?



No, not least because she wasn't stripped of her citizenship at 15, when you could make a good argument that she wasn't really old enough to make good decisions, nor was she stripped of her citizenship at 18 when she became an adult and entirely entitled and able to make her own decisions about her life - she was given, in effect, an 18 month 'grace' period between becoming an adult and being stripped of her citizenship.

I rather doubt you'd accept the state or 'community representatives' saying that a 19yo wasn't entitled to make decisions about who they wanted to marry - or not marry - who they wanted to vote for, what job they wanted to do, or what they wanted to wear, or not wear, so I'm somewhat puzzled (obviously I'm not) as to why you think that if she, as any other 19yo wasn't entitled to make decisions about her life, _and to accept the consequences of those decisions._


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To those of you cheering along the Begum decision, are you not even a tiny bit ashamed of yourselves for supporting the idea that her case should be treated differently due to her extreme youth?



Also, you continue to conflate a valid criticism of the law with a suggestion that it's not been applied properly in this case.


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> No, not least because she wasn't stripped of her citizenship at 15, when you could make a good argument that she wasn't really old enough to make good decisions, nor was she stripped of her citizenship at 18 when she became an adult and entirely entitled and able to make her own decisions about her life - she was given, in effect, an 18 month 'grace' period between becoming an adult and being stripped of her citizenship.
> 
> I rather doubt you'd accept the state or 'community representatives' saying that a 19yo wasn't entitled to make decisions about who they wanted to marry - or not marry - who they wanted to vote for, what job they wanted to do, or what they wanted to wear, or not wear, so I'm somewhat puzzled (obviously I'm not) as to why you think that if she, as any other 19yo wasn't entitled to make decisions about her life, _and to accept the consequences of those decisions._


That would be a better argument if she'd known she was a Bangladeshi and chosen not to do anything about it on reaching adulthood.


----------



## kebabking (Mar 19, 2021)

Athos said:


> That would be a better argument if she'd known she was a Bangladeshi and chosen not to do anything about it on reaching adulthood.



And who's word do you have that she didn't, and do you theres the tiniest reason for them to be a bit circumspect about whether they did or not?

Do you think she wants to go to Bangladesh?

You're interested - not unreasonably - in the law, I'm more interested in the principle of a community deciding that someone who is a member of that community, but who joins another community, then makes war on their original community, and then attempts to come back when it all goes tits up, can be told to feck off, and the idea that they are unwanted by anyone is a) their problem, and b) a possibility they should have thought a bit harder about when coming up with this whizzo plan...


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not the killer post someone thought it would be then.



No, the complete opposite.  The judgement specifically reinforces the idea that British citizens with Bangladeshi parents are automatically citizens of Bangladesh until they reach 21.  Something that's been tested a number of times, now, and upheld in every instance (accepting that her appeal remains to be decided).


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> And who's word do you have that she didn't, and do you theres the tiniest reason for them to be a bit circumspect about whether they did or not?
> 
> Do you think she wants to go to Bangladesh?
> 
> You're interested - not unreasonably - in the law, I'm more interested in the principle of a community deciding that someone who is a member of that community, but who joins another community, then makes war on their original community, and then attempts to come back when it all goes tits up, can be told to feck off, and the idea that they are unwanted by anyone is a) their problem, and b) a possibility they should have thought a bit harder about when coming up with this whizzo plan...



I'm unaware of any independent evidence either way. Though, I consider that, on the balance of probabilities,it's inherently unlikely that she was aware of her dual citizenship given all the circumstances.

I'm sure she doesn't want to go to Bangladesh; she'd likely face execution!

I get that you're more interested in achieving the outcome you favour than the niceties of the law. But I'm sure you appreciate that's not unproblematic; the risks of HS wielding power without sufficient safeguards, even if, for now at least, its being wielded against scumbags for whom you have no sympathy.


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

Here's the judgement for anyone interested.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> And who's word do you have that she didn't, and do you theres the tiniest reason for them to be a bit circumspect about whether they did or not?
> 
> Do you think she wants to go to Bangladesh?
> 
> You're interested - not unreasonably - in the law, I'm more interested in the principle of a community deciding that someone who is a member of that community, but who joins another community, then makes war on their original community, and then attempts to come back when it all goes tits up, can be told to feck off, and the idea that they are unwanted by anyone is a) their problem, and b) a possibility they should have thought a bit harder about when coming up with this whizzo plan...


perhaps the precedent of john amery might have been followed, where the uk didn't leave him languishing in italy but brought him home. do you think this woman is more dangerous than john amery?


----------



## kebabking (Mar 19, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps the precedent of john amery might have been followed, where the uk didn't leave him languishing in italy but brought him home. do you think this woman is more dangerous than john amery?



My problem with bringing her back - and I fully accept that there are problems _for us _in leaving her there - is that the legal/security protections _for us _are both not exactly foolproof and staggeringly expensive. John Amery got, _and was only ever going to get, _the rope - which is both cheap and has a 100% success rate.

As that option doesn't apply, it's not really a valid comparison.



Athos said:


> I'm unaware of any independent evidence either way. Though, I consider that, on the balance of probabilities,it's inherently unlikely that she was aware of her dual citizenship given all the circumstances.
> 
> I'm sure she doesn't want to go to Bangladesh; she'd likely face execution!
> 
> I get that you're more interested in achieving the outcome you favour than the niceties of the law. But I'm sure you appreciate that's not unproblematic; the risks of HS wielding power without sufficient safeguards, even if, for now at least, its being wielded against scumbags for whom you have no sympathy.



The answer to the legitimate concern of the HS welding such power is not to remover the power, but to remove it from the HS: parliament should legislate, setting out the conditions under which it can be done, HS then takes their case to either the Supreme Court, or more politically, a star chamber of MP's who decide whether the conditions have been met.


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> The answer to the legitimate concern of the HS welding such power is not to remover the power, but to remove it from the HS: parliament should legislate, setting out the conditions under which it can be done, HS then takes their case to either the Supreme Court, or more politically, a star chamber of MP's who decide whether the conditions have been met.



I think that, as a minimum, there need to better checks and balances (though I'm not attracted to the idea of politicians deciding).  But I think there's also good arguments for the removal of the power to strip citizenship _per se_.  Though that would create other issues e.g. either the public are unprotected from these individuals, or the state is given other draconian powers to mitigate the risk.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think that, as a minimum, there need to better checks and balances (though I'm not attracted to the idea of politicians deciding).  But I think there's also good arguments for the removal of the power to strip citizenship _per se_.  Though that would create other issues e.g. either the public are unprotected from these individuals, _or the state is given other draconian powers to mitigate the risk_.



Such as being able to lock up convicted criminals?


----------



## cyril_smear (Mar 19, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> So she's so dangerous she can't be let back into the country to be held in prison while her case is heard in a court, which would almost certainly be a formality before she was returned to whence she came. I'm not sure from where you derive this imaginary situation where she's free to bowl about the country slitting throats and planting bombs. E2A not even sure she'd need to come back to blighty, some sort of fudge where she was held on the British base on Cyprus while engaging with a court remotely ought to meet what the sc suggested about a possible appeal



But then where does she go when the appeal fails🤷‍♂️


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 19, 2021)

Someone's had a word with her and told her that ditching the niqab might be a decent PR move.









						Exclusive pictures: Shamima Begum seen in Western clothes as she seeks break with IS past
					

Tracked down by The Telegraph, the once London schoolgirl declined to be interviewed but agreed to pose for photographs




					www.telegraph.co.uk


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

8ball said:


> Such as being able to lock up convicted criminals?



Yes, but there's a gap between those who are a danger and those who are convicted, which arises from e.g. the inadmissibility of telephone interception evidence in criminal trials. Also, the length of sentences, and the risk people still pose when released after relatively short periods. We have to be carful what we wish for, as taking away this power might lead to others being boosted with unintended consequences.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 19, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Someone's had a word with her and told her that ditching the niqab might be a decent PR move.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, certainly looks that way.
Seems like they are still working on the interview skills...


----------



## xenon (Mar 19, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> To those of you cheering along the Begum decision, are you not even a tiny bit ashamed of yourselves for supporting the idea that her case should be treated differently due to her extreme youth?



A. Who's cheering it on.
B. Lots of legal decisions take into account youth when decisions are made. Not sure if you've noticed 
C. Do you still think Bangladeshi law is some how erroneous?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 19, 2021)

xenon said:


> A. Who's cheering it on.
> B. Lots of legal decisions take into account youth when decisions are made. Not sure if you've noticed
> C. Do you still think Bangladeshi law is some how erroneous?


A. There are a few. Read the thread. 
B. Generally, youth is considered a mitigating factor, not something to be used as a stick.
C. I don't think this is about Bangladeshi law. I think it is about British law. And yes, if British law allows this, then it is wrong.


----------



## xenon (Mar 19, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A. There are a few. Read the thread.
> B. Generally, youth is considered a mitigating factor, not something to be used as a stick.
> C. I don't think this is about Bangladeshi law. I think it is about British law. And yes, if British law allows this, then it is wrong.



I've been reading it. No one's cheering it on. That's just ad hominem rhetoric.


OK leave aside the Bangladesh constitutional legality point. Are there any circumstances in which you think a citizen of the UK can have their citizenship revoked, where it does not leave them stateless. i.e. where they have dual citizenship and they would not be rendered stateless as a result?

If not, fair enough, that's consistent.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 19, 2021)

As an aside, Begum popped up earlier this week in a documentary where she dresses in western clothes having ditched the all aspects of Islamic wear including any kind of head covering, she renounces ISIS and says she had no idea they were nasty killers and that, plus she never did anything other than housework. If all true that's lovely, but this thread is full of folk stating as fact that the camp she is in is internally run by ISIS and any slip in standards or denunciation of ideology would be fatal for her. So how come she's now free to say and do whatever is needed in her mind to return to the UK?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 19, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As an aside, Begum popped up earlier this week in a documentary where she dresses in western clothes having ditched the all aspects of Islamic wear including any kind of head covering, she renounces ISIS and says she had no idea they were nasty killers and that, plus she never did anything other than housework. If all true that's lovely, but this thread is full of folk stating as fact that the camp she is in is internally run by ISIS and any slip in standards or denunciation of ideology would be fatal for her. So how come she's now free to say and do whatever is needed in her mind to return to the UK?


presumably it's a cunning daesh plot to infiltrate her back into the country


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 19, 2021)

kebabking said:


> The answer to the legitimate concern of the HS welding such power is not to remover the power, but to remove it from the HS: parliament should legislate, setting out the conditions under which it can be done, HS then takes their case to either the Supreme Court, or more politically, a star chamber of MP's who decide whether the conditions have been met.


The system works fine as it is, as the case that Rutita1 posted earlier demonstrates. The HS overstepped and the appeal succeeded. Voila.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Mar 19, 2021)

Amery was handed over to the Allies by the Garibaldi Brigade of Italian Partisans, the British officer who took him in to custody was Alan Whicker, of Whickers World


----------



## maomao (Mar 19, 2021)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> As an aside, Begum popped up earlier this week in a documentary where she dresses in western clothes having ditched the all aspects of Islamic wear including any kind of head covering, she renounces ISIS and says she had no idea they were nasty killers and that, plus she never did anything other than housework. If all true that's lovely, but this thread is full of folk stating as fact that the camp she is in is internally run by ISIS and any slip in standards or denunciation of ideology would be fatal for her. So how come she's now free to say and do whatever is needed in her mind to return to the UK?


From what I've read factions have developed within the refugee camps and there are enough women not wearing the hijab that they can be relatively safe. This would suggest that she's burned her bridges with the Isis lot who wouldn't look kindly on her putting the slap on for the foreign journalists then getting her burka back out when they're gone.


----------



## maomao (Mar 19, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The system works fine as it is, as the case that Rutita1 posted earlier demonstrates. The HS overstepped and the appeal succeeded. Voila.


So you're perfectly fine with adult fighters coming back to the UK as long as we keep the dangerous trafficked teenagers out?


----------



## Spymaster (Mar 19, 2021)

maomao said:


> So you're perfectly fine with adult fighters coming back to the UK as long as we keep the dangerous trafficked teenagers out?


Not at all. I want them all left there if it's legally possible.


----------



## Athos (Mar 19, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> A. There are a few. Read the thread.
> B. Generally, youth is considered a mitigating factor, not something to be used as a stick.
> C. I don't think this is about Bangladeshi law. I think it is about British law. And yes, if British law allows this, then it is wrong.



As English law stands, it IS about Bangladeshi law. What you mean is that it shouldn't be. You seem to struggle to differentiate between what is and what should be.


----------



## gosub (Mar 19, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not at all. I want them all left there if it's legally possible.


Oppsite. Zero sympathy for her et al. Quite a lot of sympathy for the Kurds. I know UK is helping sort out the actual innocent jihadi brides (good) but we could do more with the arseholes too


----------



## pardon (Mar 22, 2021)

British IS schoolgirl 'wants to return home'
					

But thats just a semantic way for you to claim that she poses a significant risk, and if you can do that then I can claim that Spymaster poses a significant risk as well. I might feel like saying it but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny its just armchair psychology and conjecture.  Of...




					www.urban75.net
				




It's funny you mention intelligence, because in the case of the three girls who went to turkey, the effect was, turkey 

arrested the man that brought them across the border, they long claimed he was a Canadian intelligence agent









						Suspected spy from Canadian intelligence assists British girls join ISIS
					

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said that an intelligence agent from a country that is a member of the anti-ISIS coalition had helped the three...




					www.dailysabah.com
				




They shut the turkey route into Syria that NATO was using to get the mujahedeen across



			https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1057610X.2015.1119544
		










						The secret jihadi smuggling route through Turkey - CNN
					

It's an odd experience flying in to Hatay, southern Turkey, on the border with Syria and its nasty and seemingly infinite war these days: there is a truly international flavor to the passenger manifests.




					edition.cnn.com
				




It was an international scandal so why wasn't she asked in the BBC interview who brought them across and how they contacted that person? 

That Al-Qaeda were using American ordered eastern european arms was confirmed in this report 









						350 diplomatic flights carry weapons for terrorists - Dilyana.bg
					

At least 350 diplomatic Silk Way Airlines (an Azerbaijani state-run company) flights transported weapons for war conflicts across the world over the last 3 years. The state aircrafts of Azerbaijan carried on-board tens of tons of heavy weapons and ammunition headed to terrorists under the cover...




					dilyana.bg
				




That ISIS was using US ordered Eastern European weapons was confirmed in conflict armament research's three year study of disposed battlefield arms in the weapons of the Islamic state study 









						WEAPONS OF THE ISLAMIC STATE | Conflict Armament Research
					

This report is the result of more than three years of field investigation into Islamic State supply chains. It presents an analysis of more than 40,000 items recovered from the group between 2014 and 2017. These items encompass weapons, ammunition, and the traceable components and chemical...




					www.conflictarm.com
				




Proven without doubt, from battlefield to supplier, to purchase order (ordered under us army licence diverted to a warzone) 

Regardless of whether you intended to supply Al-Qaeda and ISIS you should be held accountable for dumping weapons into a war zone

And if you are supplying weapons to your militia pals why not just use US made weapons why use covertly ordered Eastern European weapons? Is it because if it ends up in the hands of 'the bad jihadis' as opposed to the good jihadis you have culpable deniability. Let's assume that the weapons reached their intended recipients because hey you have a history, remember the stingers remember Afghanistan. In a parallel of history they were also fighting a Russian satellite, just like Assad.

The history of the west's involvement with amateur jihadi warriors fighting the west's proxy wars starts with Afghanistan, the blessed mujahedeen, maybe Thatcher's last gift to humanity, an international of psychopathic mass murderers willing to fight the west's wars they've turned up in Tajikistan, Bosnia, Chechnya twice, Syria, Libya Iraq, Yemen, (all either russia or syria aligned states)  after the Afghan civil war, according to Paul Stott's exacting doctorate study the UK became a safe haven for the mujahedeen fighters

British Jihadism - the detail and the denial





						British Jihadism: The Detail and the Denial  - UEA Digital Repository
					






					ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk
				




"In 1997 the United Kingdom banned the promotion of terrorism overseas. It was an
action that may be considered overdue – members of jihadist groups from at least 14
territories are shown to have settled in this country, with four major terrorist
organisations operating here – the Algerian GIA, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Libyan
Islamic Fighting Group and Al-Qaeda."

Thatcher and Major allowed four extremely highly militant terrorist groups to openly take root in the UK along with almost every non violent politically Islamist group after the Afghan civil war. Those groups simply continued operating basing themselves in the UK coordinating the Paris attacks in 1994 the east African is embassy bombings in 1998, and the Algerian civil war. Remember Theresa May's grandstanding how she was standing up to terrorists by sending them home, the Tories let them in they created the problem. When the Tories came to power in 2010 they again used British Muslims to fight wars in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen  just as Thatcher did. The Tories see British Muslims as nothing more than disposable humans to die on a battlefield. They allowed the most manipulative people in history to openly operate and  recruit from the British muslim community, frankly the British muslim community stood no chance while appeasers such as Michael Clarke and the king's college war studies department tolerated mass murdering violent jihadis on British streets recruiting gullible simpletons halfwits to kill themselves on foreign battlefields persuaded by charismatic preachers openly operating among us telling the dickhead brigade they will be pioneers in a beautiful new state while silently measuring them up for bomb vests









						Michael Clarke: The contract with Muslims must not be torn up
					

Michael Clarke: Britain's culture of tolerating radicalism is in the national interest and should not be swept away by the urge to get tough.




					www.theguardian.com
				




You see keeping this girl locked up in a camp won't do anything while the west continues a pattern of using dickheads who think they will achieve paradise by killing themselves in a kamikaze strategy to fight their proxy wars. The conservatives, NATO and the intelligence agencies introduced salafi jihadism to Britain. Lock them in a camp.


----------



## eoin_k (Mar 22, 2021)

What exactly constitutes culpable deniability though?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Mar 22, 2021)

so IS should have run an basic induction course whereby all new recruits should have completed the paperwork to formally relinquish, by written and submitted oath, any citizenship links/ tenuous or whatevs, apart from the main one they wish to retain. it's IS  HR  department that have fucked up here. they have a duty of care surely. etc


----------



## pardon (Mar 23, 2021)

eoin_k said:


> What exactly constitutes culpable deniability though?



In this case the covert Eastern European arms 
shipments that various front companies provably ordered under us military export licenses were for the moderate rebels. So why didn't you supply them with US made arms then? Is it because you didn't want to be seen to be arming Al-Qaeda while covertly arming Al-Qaeda, I think so, but regardless of what I think if you dump arms into a warzone and they end up in Al-Qaeda and ISIS's arms caches then you remain accountable. 

Consecutive Tory administrations have used jihadis to fight their proxy wars since Thatcher, they are warmongerers, evil.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Apr 30, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> What bollocks. She's 19 and unrepentent about fucking off to join a terrorist "state" who enslaved, raped, and murdered thousands of _other_ women and who would do the same to _you_ in a heartbeat. She seems to have happily engaged with what the scum were doing. She says she escaped because she saw no future for _the caliphate_, not because she thought they were cunts.
> 
> Pretty disgusting what you're doing here. Trying to crowbar in your agenda laden misogyny angle. The only difference between her and a male who'd done the same is that she's pregnant.
> 
> Absolutely nothing should be afforded her by the government. If she does manage to make it back here somehow her child should be removed and adopted whilst she is imprisoned until a) she shows some remorse, and b) she has been 'deradicalised' (if that's possible).


So basically you don't care about the children of Muslim sectarian bigots, but you do care about the children of Jewish sectarian bigots.

Why take sides between different sets of fundamentalists? Giving one set completely different preferential treatment? A definite inconsistency there.

You've tried to disguise it in the Batley Gramar school thread but you reek of blatant islamophobic bigotry and for some reason  it is tolerated on this forum, as is the islamophobic racism of Likesfish.


----------



## Spymaster (Apr 30, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> So basically you don't care about the children of Muslim sectarian bigots, but you do care about the children of jewish sectarian bigots.
> 
> Why take sides between different types of fundamentalists? Giving one set preferential treatment?
> 
> You reek of blatant islamophobic bigotry and for some reason  it is tolerated on this forum, as is the anti-arab racism of Likesfish.


Fuck off Nazi boy. You won't win this. You've had your arse kicked today. Own it like an adult.


----------



## bimble (Apr 30, 2021)

jesus. He really thinks that all Orthodox Jews are the same as people who decided to join ISIS, which is actually a bit scary.
He probably feels it's his moral duty as a good upstanding citizen to stare menacingly & disapprovingly at them whenever he spots one.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Apr 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> He probably feels it's his moral duty as a good upstanding citizen to stare menacingly & disapprovingly at them whenever he spots one.


No I don't. What a bizarre post.


----------



## bimble (Apr 30, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> No I don't. What a bizarre post.


Love how you clipped off the first bit of my post, which presumably you didn't have a problem with. 
Just stop obsessing about jews, that would be great.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 30, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> So basically you don't care about the children of Muslim sectarian bigots, but you do care about the children of Jewish sectarian bigots.
> 
> Why take sides between different types of fundamentalists? Giving one set preferential treatment? A definite inconsistency there.
> 
> You reek of blatant islamophobic bigotry and for some reason  it is tolerated on this forum, as is the islamophobic racism of Likesfish.


Quit digging


----------



## 8ball (Apr 30, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Quit digging



Have to agree here.  Maybe time to chill away from the keyboard for a bit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> Have to agree here.  Maybe time to chill away from the keyboard for a bit.


If by a bit you mean six months or so then yeh


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 30, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> No I don't. What a bizarre post.



Don't be a count


----------



## bellaozzydog (Apr 30, 2021)

remind me where we are in this

I’m working the “we can look at this objectively and look at root causes for it and look to improve society”

I’m presuming most other posters are Of the string her high, school of thought


----------



## not-bono-ever (Apr 30, 2021)

Bring her home


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 30, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> remind me where we are in this


Page 154, so really, say what you want.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 30, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> remind me where we are in this
> 
> I’m working the “we can look at this objectively and look at root causes for it and look to improve society”
> 
> I’m presuming most other posters are Of the string her high, school of thought



what do you think are the root causes? Joining a genocidal proto-state isn’t something many people do.


----------



## bellaozzydog (May 1, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> what do you think are the root causes? Joining a genocidal proto-state isn’t something many people do.


Get your definition of root cause analysis brushed up and we can discuss


----------



## 8ball (May 1, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> Bring her home



I guess that silence must mean the Caliphate is considering your request.


----------



## Spymaster (May 1, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> Get your definition of root cause analysis brushed up and we can discuss


Have you got something to say?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 1, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> what do you think are the root causes? Joining a genocidal proto-state isn’t something many people do.



They were groomed, indoctrinated, and radicalised. 
People who have been convinced to do bad things don't have to be evil on the inside.
Plus they were not even being radicalised to do something violent (at least to start with).
They were convinced to start a new life  that would have less pressure on them to succeed and would be able to start a family.
Something that probably feel like a good option for someone facing huge pressure to do well in A-levels and go on to have a 'good' job.
And one you are in, separated from your family and surrounded by this new cult  they are only going to pull you in deeper.

It can be really easy to say  'don't drink the kool-aid' but lots of people are vulnerable to the tactics used to indoctrinate people. 
Teens are probably* some of the most vulnerable to this given their lack of experience  and still being in the process of gaining an adult identity.

Running away from home and  getting in with a crowd who don't have your best interest at heart is something that a fair number of teens have probably done  and a lot of those weren't even targeted by someone actively trying to indoctrinate them.



*I can't recall any specific data to support this at the moment so i'm adding the probably


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 1, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Joining a genocidal proto-state isn’t something many people do.


Isn't that how the US started?


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> They were groomed, indoctrinated, and radicalised.
> People who have been convinced to do bad things don't have to be evil on the inside.
> Plus they were not even being radicalised to do something violent (at least to start with).
> They were convinced to start a new life  that would have less pressure on them to succeed and would be able to start a family.
> ...



This narrative is something you've invented; you've no idea whether or not any of that's true. For all we know, she could have been ideologically committed to islamofascism before she actively sought out contact with people who could help her get to Syria, where she hoped to behead some infidels.  And still hold those views, only hoping to come to the UK in order to commit atrocities here.  Both scenarios are pure speculation, since we're not party to any intelligence.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

bellaozzydog said:


> remind me where we are in this
> 
> I’m working the “we can look at this objectively and look at root causes for it and look to improve society”
> 
> I’m presuming most other posters are Of the string her high, school of thought



I'm not in the "string her up" camp, particularly (though I have limited sympathy for her). And don't like the law the Home Secretary has used, or how it was done. But, whilst your root cause analysis might bear fruit in time, it's no solution to the immediate problem of what to do with her, now.


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> This narrative is something you've invented; you've no idea whether or not any of that's true. For all we know, she could have been ideologically committed to islamofascism before she actively sought out contact with people who could help her get to Syria, where she hoped to behead some infidels.  And still hold those views, only hoping to come to the UK in order to commit atrocities here.  Both scenarios are pure speculation, since we're not party to any intelligence.


We know she was a child when she went and there was purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her to go. If she'd been trafficked into a Dutch brothel and spent six years in the sex industry would you be telling us perhaps she wanted to be a prostitute all along?


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> We know she was a child when she went and there was purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her to go.



Do we know there was "purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her"?  What evidence do you have of that?


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Do we know there was "purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her"?  What evidence do you have of that?


We know she was in touch with Isis recruiters. We have evidence of how Isis recruiters work.  How would you describe them?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (May 1, 2021)

I though some of the stuff i said was mentioned in the program I watched on it for work as part of doing safeguarding and prevent.
I may be misremembering some of this as that was  about two years ago but this really was the impression I walked away with.

I'm not really actually trying to claim this narrative as being the truth I just wanted push back on what seems like an idea that someone has to be inclined to do bad things  to end up in this situation. I think that idea is dangerous as it means  you think it can't happen to certain people who they are in fact still vulnerable to this.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> We know she was in touch with Isis recruiters. We have evidence of how Isis recruiters work.  How would you describe them?



Do we know she was in touch with Isis "recruiters" specifically?  What's to say she didn't initiate contact with 'fixers' to get there, having already decided to go (such that she needed no persuasion)?

The truth is, we've no idea what happened in this case, so we shouldn't try to portray a particular narrative as established fact.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> I though some of the stuff i said was mentioned in the program I watched on it for work as part of doing safeguarding and prevent.
> I may be misremembering some of this as that was  about two years ago but this really was the impression I walked away with.
> 
> I'm not really actually trying to claim this narrative as being the truth I just wanted push back on what seems like an idea that someone has to be inclined to do bad things  to end up in this situation. I think that idea is dangerous as it means  you think it can't happen to certain people who they are in fact still vulnerable to this.



That's fair enough, and all true in principle.


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Do we know she was in touch with Isis "recruiters" specifically?  What's to say she didn't initiate contact with 'fixers' to get there, having already decided to go (such that she needed no persuasion)?
> 
> The truth is, we've no idea what happened in this case, so we shouldn't try to portray a particular narrative as established fact.


Her family are pretty sure she was targeted by the Sisters Forum. What evidence do you have that they are mistaken or lying?


----------



## TopCat (May 1, 2021)

Is she still moaning?


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

TopCat said:


> Is she still moaning?


I think Athos is a bloke.


----------



## TopCat (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I think Asos is a bloke.


To be fair I was referring to the isis whinger .


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Her family are pretty sure she was targeted by the Sisters Forum. What evidence do you have that they are mistaken or lying?



I'm not the one making a claim that requires evidence; I'm saying we don't know what happened, because we've not seen the evidence.

Of course (some of) her family claim to be convinced of her innocence.  But their feelings have little probative value unless they can provide some evidence.  I've not seen it. Have you? 

I'm not saying she wasn't groomed; I'm saying we don't know she was. The repeated assertions that she was are disingenuous.


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not the one making a claim that requires evidence; I'm saying we don't know what happened, because we've not seen the evidence.
> 
> Of course her family claim to be convinced of her innocence.  But their feelings have little probative value unless that can provide some evidence.
> 
> I'm not saying she wasn't groomed; I'm saying we don't know she was.


And I'm saying if someone who said they were groomed into sex workat the age of fifteen by a group of people who we know were targeting people like her at that time, would you be on here saying the same thing?


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> And I'm saying if someone who said they were groomed into sex workat the age of fifteen by a group of people who we know were targeting people like her at that time, would you be on here saying the same thing?



Apart from anything else, the analogy is weak because, as far as I'm aware, Begum herself hasn't made such a claim.

But, to answer your question, if someone has a clear potential ulterior motive for making such a claim e.g. they were relying on it as a defence to their own crimes, I wouldn't necessarily accept it at face value - it'd require proper investigation.

If Ghislaine Maxwell now said that Epstein abused and controlled her, forcing her into recruiting girls for him to abuse, would you just accept that uncritically, and let her walk?


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Apart from anything else, the analogy is weak because, as far as I'm aware, Begum herself hasn't made such a claim.
> 
> But, to answer your question, if someone has a clear potential ulterior motive for making such a claim e.g. they were relying on it as a defence to their own crimes, I wouldn't necessarily accept it at face value - it'd require proper investigation.
> 
> If Ghislaine Maxwell now said that Epstein abused and controlled her, forcing her into recruiting girls for him to abuse, would you just accept that uncritically, and let her walk?


Maxwell's never claimed this to my knowledge but one of the claimants against Epstein says that as well as being sexually assaulted while a minor she was coerced into recruiting other girls for Epstein to abuse. Do you think US prosecutors should be more critical and consider prosecuting her for people trafficking?


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Maxwell's never claimed this to my knowledge but one of the claimants against Epstein says that as well as being sexually assaulted while a minor she was coerced into recruiting other girls for Epstein to abuse. Do you think US prosecutors should be more critical and consider prosecuting her for people trafficking?



If there's evidence that she trafficked girls to be abused, that should be investigated. But, if there's evidence that she was coerced into doing so, she shouldn't be prosecuted.

Which is broadly the same as I think about Begum. If there's evidence that she was groomed, brainwashed, controlled, and prevented from leaving, then, of course, that's potentially wholly exculpatory.

But, absent any such evidence, the _prima facie_ case is that she participated in a brutal regime that raped, tortured, and murdered on a massive scale.

What I take issue with is people defending her on the basis she was groomed, without any evidence that happened.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> If there's evidence that she trafficked girls to be abused, that should be investigated. But, if there's evidence that she was coerced into doing so, she shouldn't be prosecuted.
> 
> Which is broadly the same as I think about Begum. If there's evidence that she was groomed, brainwashed, controlled, and prevented from leaving, then, of course, that's potentially wholly exculpatory.
> 
> ...


Perhaps it's something that should be tested in a court, you know, those places where evidence is considered and weighed


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> If there's evidence that she trafficked girls to be abused, that should be investigated. But, if there's evidence that she was coerced into doing so, she shouldn't be prosecuted.
> 
> Which is broadly the same as I think about Begum. If there's evidence that she was groomed, brainwashed, controlled, and prevented from leaving, then, of course, that's potentially wholly exculpatory.
> 
> ...


There's plenty of witness evidence of her radicalisation and grooming. You're demanding something that can't exist.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps it's something that should be tested in a court, you know, those places where evidence is considered and weighed



Yes, I've said from the outset that she should stand trial where she is.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> There's plenty of witness evidence of her radicalisation and grooming.


Where?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, I've said from the outset that she should stand trial where she is.


And I suppose that you believe the local authorities there have the means and desire to enquire into what has brought her to her present plight


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Where?


In the papers. And also her own words. I can't imagine you dismissing the words of someone who claimed to have been groomed in any other circumstance.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> And I suppose that you believe the local authorities there have the means and desire to enquire into what has brought her to her present plight



On the means point, I think it's incumbent on the UK (and other countries) to provide material assistance to ensure fair trials trials are possible locally. 

If such evidence exists here, there's no reason it can't be shared with judicial authorities overseas.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> In the papers. And also her own words.



Can you point me to it specifically, please?


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Can you point me to it specifically, please?


Mail on Sunday, not hard to find. Her father also says the police told him that she was recruited by two adult women.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Mail on Sunday, not hard to find. Her father also says the police told him that she was recruited by two adult women.


Which piece, particularly? Please provide a link (broken if you prefer).


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Which piece, particularly? Please provide a link (broken if you prefer).


Ffs. Do they not have Google in the countryside. I was carrying shopping:









						Britain's jihadi bride groomer
					

Sharmeena Begum (pictured) became one of the youngest British teenagers to join ISIS  when she fled from her home in East London and travelled to Syria last December aged 15.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Ffs. Do they not have Google in the countryside. I was carrying shopping:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That article is primarily about the alleged recruitment of a different girl, *Sharmeena* Begum, by the women's wing of the IFE, known as the 'Sisters Forum'.

Insofar as it touches on Shamina, it quotes her family as saying:

'_Our daughters may have attended the East London Mosque to pray, but to our knowledge have never been associated or a part of the Islamic Forum of Europe.

'The Mosque and even the IFE have a strong track record of speaking out against and condemning extremism, this is well known within our community._'

In any event, the article mostly speculation; it certainly doesn't contain any witness evidence that Shamina was groomed.


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> That article is primarily about the alleged recruitment of a different girl, *Sharmeena* Begum, by the women's wing of the IFE, known as the 'Sisters Forum'.


It directly alleges that Sharmeena groomed Shamina. I'm not sure why you needed to bold that name, were you confused?


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> It directly alleges that Sharmeena groomed Shamina. I'm not sure why you needed to bold that name, were you confused?



Do you understand the difference between an allegation and evidence?


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Do you understand the difference between an allegation and evidence?


Yes. Do you understand how evidence _works_?


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Yes. Do you understand how evidence _works_?



Yes. Do you have any?

Because, so far, your 'evidence' that "_there was purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her to go" _is a completely unsupported allegation in the Mail on Sunday that she was recruited by her friend, another 15 year old girl.


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes. Do you have any?
> 
> Because, so far, your 'evidence' that "_there was purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her to go" _is a completely unsupported allegation in the Mail on Sunday that she was recruited by her friend, another 15 year old girl.


I don't have anything that you will find acceptable because you are demanding the kind of evidence that tends to be unsubstantiated before court appearances but this is not a courtroom and you are not a judge. There are many articles that make similar allegations on the basis of things people have told journalists. That's more evidence than you have for your position that a child can make the series of decisions she did without adult coercion.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> I don't have anything that you will find acceptable because you are demanding the kind of evidence that tends to be unsubstantiated before court appearances but this is not a courtroom and you are not a judge. There are many articles that make similar allegations on the basis of things people have told journalists. That's more evidence than you have for your position that a child can make the series of decisions she did without adult coercion.



I'm quite open to the idea of being persuaded. It's just that you've not shown me any evidence; merely press speculation.  (And, to be clear, I'm not insisting on incontrovertible proof that would satisfy a court, just some - any! - _prima facie_ evidence.)

You've not been able to point to a single witness or document that supports your claim that "_there was purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her to go." _(Though I note you're now appearing to suggest it was her 15 year old friend who recruited her.)

The stuff people have told the papers is her family and supporters repeating the *allegation* she was groomed; that's not *evidence* that she was.  (Though, in any event, they don't even make any claim of grooming in the only article you quoted!)

I've not made any assertions, so there's nothing for which I should provide evidence.  My case isn't that she wasn't groomed; but that I've seen no evidence that she was.

Despite all your bluster, you've not been able to point to any.


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm quite open to the idea of being persuaded. It's just that you've not shown me any evidence; merely press speculation.
> 
> You've not been able to point to a single witness or document that supports your claim that "_there was purposefully coercive adult involvement in persuading her to go." _(Though I note you're now appearing to suggest it was her 15 year old friend who recruited her.)
> 
> ...


Because you're insisting that 'evidence' can only refer to the standard of evidence admissable in court. 

I'd say that her father saying that he was told by police that there was adult involvement and the police at no point denying this, evidence that there was adult involvement. That doesn't mean I would go to court with this evidence. Meanwhile you have no evidence _of any kind_ for your proposition.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because you're insisting that 'evidence' can only refer to the standard of evidence admissable in court.
> 
> I'd say that her father saying that he was told by police that there was adult involvement and the police at no point denying this, evidence that there was adult involvement. That doesn't mean I would go to court with this evidence. Meanwhile you have no evidence _of any kind_ for your proposition.



I'm not referring to admissible evidence. I'd be happy with any evidence.  But allegations by people who aren't witnesses isn't evidence.

I've not seen any evidence that he father was told that by the police.  Can you provide a link, please? 

I've not got a 'proposition' beyond the fact that I've not seen evidence of grooming!


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> I've not seen any evidence that he father was told that by the police. Can you provide a link, please?


Google it, sealion. Her father has said that to several national papers.


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> Google it, sealion. Her father has said that to several national papers.



I can't find it. Can you link to it, please?


----------



## maomao (May 1, 2021)

Athos said:


> I can't find it. Can you link to it, please?


----------



## Athos (May 1, 2021)

maomao said:


> View attachment 265842



That'll be a "no, I can't" then.

Curious that you keep referring to all this freely available evidence, but, when pushed, you can't provide it.  🤔

And the attempted deflection via a bad faith accusation of 'sealioning' is risible, given the difficulty of finding any reports of her father saying what you claim.


----------



## RedRedRose (May 1, 2021)

For those arguing for her return, did you listen to the audio interview posted previously?
She didn’t seem to give a fuck about decomposing heads by the roadside. Not quite the person I’d want to be rescuing from a tight spot.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not the one making a claim that requires evidence; I'm saying we don't know what happened, because we've not seen the evidence.
> 
> Of course (some of) her family claim to be convinced of her innocence.  But their feelings have little probative value unless they can provide some evidence.  I've not seen it. Have you?
> 
> I'm not saying she wasn't groomed; I'm saying we don't know she was. The repeated assertions that she was are disingenuous.



This is all very lawyerish stuff. No it's not outside the realm of possibility that this person, aged 15 and apparently not very bright, organised a trip to Syria by herself and made contact with IS off her own back based solely on what she'd seen on youtube or whatever. But if you factor in any prior knowledge of how young people behave, and of how cults and fundamentalists operate, and add in the known information pertinent to this case, then you see it's a possibility only in the narrowest, most technical sense of the word. 

The world is not a court room. We cannot discount what is overwhelmingly likely to have been the case because of a mathematically non-zero probability. And if Begum was groomed or recruited by people in the UK, she could be a key source of information that could get her recruiters locked away forever. That outcome would represent the only possible 'good' to come out of all this.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> This is all very lawyerish stuff. No it's not outside the realm of possibility that this person, aged 15 and apparently not very bright, organised a trip to Syria by herself and made contact with IS off her own back based solely on what she'd seen on youtube or whatever. But if you factor in any prior knowledge of how young people behave, and of how cults and fundamentalists operate, and add in the known information pertinent to this case, then you see it's a possibility only in the narrowest, most technical sense of the word.
> 
> The world is not a court room. We cannot discount what is overwhelmingly likely to have been the case because of a mathematically non-zero probability. And if Begum was groomed or recruited by people in the UK, she could be a key source of information that could get her recruiters locked away forever. That outcome would represent the only possible 'good' to come out of all this.



There's a lot of ground between the idea that she organised it all herself, completely unaided (which I accept is inherently unlikely), and being coerced into going (which was the claim).

But, even then, I've always accepted that she may have been coerced. We just don't know.  If people want to say they have a hunch that happened, that's cool. But don't insist it did and claim there's evidence of that if you can't point to it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> And if Begum was groomed or recruited by people in the UK, she could be a key source of information that could get her recruiters locked away forever. That outcome would represent the only possible 'good' to come out of all this.


The security services would almost certainly have had her returned to the UK for interrogation or found another way to interview her if they thought she could provide any useful information. That suggests that they either don't think she can, or they've sent people there to question her on the quiet.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The security services would almost certainly have had her returned to the UK for interrogation or found another way to interview her if they thought she could provide any useful information. That suggests that they either don't think she can, or they've sent people there to question her on the quiet.



Or that potential benefits of her return are outweighed by the risks.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Or that potential benefits of her return are outweighed by the risks.


Given the potential intelligence goldmines that they are I'd thoroughly expect those camps to infiltrated and regularly visited by spooks of all flavours.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> There's a lot of ground between the idea that she organised it all herself, completely unaided (which I accept is inherently unlikely), and being coerced into going (which was the claim).
> 
> But, even then, I've always accepted that she may have been coerced. But we don't know.  If people want to say they have a hunch that happened, that's cool. But don't insist it did and claim there's evidence of that if you can't point to it.


Maya Foa who runs a charity working in the Syrian camps and has spent time there says she was trafficked. The nature of her evidence means she's unable to put names, times and places in this article. What evidence do you have that she is lying or wrong?









						Shamima Begum is a victim of trafficking – and the UK should treat her as such | Maya Foa
					

Depriving someone of their citizenship is easier when they have been reduced to a caricature, says Maya Foa, director of the human rights charity Reprieve




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

RedRedRose said:


> For those arguing for her return, did you listen to the audio interview posted previously?
> She didn’t seem to give a fuck about decomposing heads by the roadside. Not quite the person I’d want to be rescuing from a tight spot.


Do you know what ptsd is?


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Maya Foa who runs a charity working in the Syrian camps and has spent time there says she was trafficked. The nature of her evidence means she's unable to put names, times and places in this article. What evidence do you have that she is lying or wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She doesn't offer any evidence about Begum; she merely makes an unsupported claim. It may or may not be true.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Maya Foa who runs a charity working in the Syrian camps and has spent time there says she was trafficked. The nature of her evidence means she's unable to put names, times and places in this article. What evidence do you have that she is lying or wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's just an opinion piece by someone with a deep agenda.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That's just an opinion piece by someone with a deep agenda.


She obviously has an agenda, she works for a human rights charity. What is 'deep' about it?


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> She obviously has an agenda, she works for a human rights charity. What is 'deep' about it?


The fact that she has more reason than most to make such claims.


----------



## bmd (May 2, 2021)

Given that most people, all of them perhaps, on this thread will feel zero impact of her return, what's the problem with it? My problem with it is that it feels like we would be saying that you can go off and fully support our enemies and then when that's no longer your thing then you can come back here and, possibly, begin recruiting more 15 year old girls for the ISIS nonces. I get that we would be sacrificing her if we did this and my god she has had a shit life since being there but I guess my concern lies with the future Shamimas.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> The fact that she has more reason than most to make such claims.


No, you're using the word 'deep' to imply there is something sinister or unpleasant about her agenda.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> No, you're using the word 'deep' to imply there is something sinister or unpleasant about her agenda.


No I wasn't because I don't think that. I was using it to imply exactly what I said above. Foa is a HR lawyer directly campaining for the return of Camp Roj detainees. Her opinions are about as biased as you're likely to find on the subject.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> No I wasn't because I don't think that. I was using it to imply exactly what I said above. Foa is a HR lawyer directly campaining for the return of Camp Roj detainees. Her opinions are about as biased as you're likely to find on the subject.


Do you think human rights lawyers are a bad thing then?


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Do you think human rights lawyers are a bad thing then?


No.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

RedRedRose said:


> For those arguing for her return, did you listen to the audio interview posted previously?
> She didn’t seem to give a fuck about decomposing heads by the roadside. Not quite the person I’d want to be rescuing from a tight spot.


If this is your standard for who gets to come back to blighty then there's British soldiers who'd have been left in eg Malaya where they did things which make not being fussed about decomposing heads by the road look really trivial as in the spoilered image below showing a British soldier holding severed heads as trophies



Spoiler


----------



## Red Cat (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> It directly alleges that Sharmeena groomed Shamina. I'm not sure why you needed to bold that name, were you confused?



I feel I have more understanding of Sharmeena and the impact of her mother's death on her and her family - she was clearly a very vulnerable young person at that time. I don't think a girl as vulnerable as Sharmeena was in a position to groom another, but their relationship might highlight the dynamics of freindships and the power of groups in influencing us. In that respect, it might not make a great deal of sense to look at Shamina in isolaton, however, I don't think we have much information on her to help beyond the most superficial understanding. Because of her age and what we know about radicalisation and the dynamics of grooming, we might assume that the latter occurred, but we have no evidence of how it took place and what in particular might have made Shamina Begum more vulnerable to it than other adolescent girls. If her history is out there, I haven't come across it, and I have looked.

As an example, in work, if I make a referral to the CSE service, I need evidence about makes the child vulnerable, their early childhood, their relationships with parents/carers/other adults, is there alcohol or drug use at home, or DV, difficulties at school and with peers, are there mental health difficulties, developmental trauma, fetal alcohol syndrome, what services have been and are involved, as well as dates/times of incidents and names were possible. This kind of information is missing, I don't feel we know anything about her at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> I feel I have more understanding of Sharmeena and the impact of her mother's death on her and her family - she was clearly a very vulnerable young person at that time. I don't think a girl as vulnerable as Sharmeena was in a position to groom another, but their relationship might highlight the dynamics of freindships and the power of groups in influencing us. In that respect, it might not make a great deal of sense to look at Shamina in isolaton, however, I don't think we have much information on her to help beyond the most superficial understanding. Because of her age and what we know about radicalisation and the dynamics of grooming, we might assume that the latter occurred, but we have no evidence of how it took place and what in particular might have made Shamina Begum more vulnerable to it than other adolescent girls. If her history is out there, I haven't come across it, and I have looked.
> 
> As an example, in work, if I make a referral to the CSE service, I need evidence about makes the child vulnerable, their early childhood, their relationships with parents/carers/other adults, is there alcohol or drug use at home, or DV, difficulties at school and with peers, are there mental health difficulties, developmental trauma, fetal alcohol syndrome, what services have been and are involved, as well as dates/times of incidents and names were possible. This kind of information is missing, I don't feel we know anything about her at all.


Yes, you're saying there needs to be evidence of vulnerability involving encounters with a range of institutions and tbh I can't help thinking that there's a great load of vulnerability you'd be missing. Vulnerable means exposed to the possibility of harm to me but to you it seems to mean someone who has been harmed.


----------



## Red Cat (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yes, you're saying there needs to be evidence of vulnerability involving encounters with a range of institutions and tbh I can't help thinking that there's a great load of vulnerability you'd be missing. Vulnerable means exposed to the possibility of harm to me but to you it seems to mean someone who has been harmed.



Well, not quite, although reading back I can see how it might read in that way. Of course there are vulnerable or potentially vulnerable people who don't come into contact with services. I was using it as an example of the kind of information that might guide an informed understanding of what took place for this particular person. That doesn't mean it's not there, but it doesn't seem to be in the public domain.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think a girl as vulnerable as Sharmeena was in a position to groom another...



But it must be true, it's in the Mail on Sunday!



Red Cat said:


> Because of her age and what we know about radicalisation and the dynamics of grooming, we might assume that the latter occurred, but we have no evidence of how it took place...



Never mind 'how', we have no evidence that it did take place at all!

And I'm not convinced we know enough about either her or the psychological processes of joining such organisations to even make that assumption with a lot of confidence.


----------



## bimble (May 2, 2021)

Nearly 5,000 posts and half of them speculating on unknowable stuff about this woman, i find it quite creepy.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

bimble said:


> Nearly 5,000 posts and half of them speculating on unknowable stuff about this woman, i find it quite creepy.


Most of them concern what we _do_ know about her, tbf.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

bimble said:


> Nearly 5,000 posts and half of them speculating on unknowable stuff about this woman, i find it quite creepy.


There's a few dozen that are just fantasies about killing her tbh.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

bimble said:


> Nearly 5,000 posts and half of them speculating on unknowable stuff about this woman, i find it quite creepy.



Quite. Pretty much all we know is that she joined a brutal regime of rapists, murderers, and torturers.  All the efforts to excuse that are pure speculation.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

bimble said:


> Nearly 5,000 posts and half of them speculating on unknowable stuff about this woman, i find it quite creepy.


In fact the majority of the thread was an argument about her nationality and whether it was right (or legal, as some posters are more concerned with legality than morality) to remove her British citizenship. Is that creepy?


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> In fact the majority of the thread was an argument about her nationality and whether it was right (or legal, as some posters are more concerned with legality than morality) to remove her British citizenship. Is that creepy?



For the record, me pointing out the falsity of your (and others') claims about the law isn't to say I think legality is more important than morality.  (And I've criticised the law and its application in this case, and explained the current situation isn't my preference.)


----------



## bimble (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> In fact the majority of the thread was an argument about her nationality and whether it was right (or legal, as some posters are more concerned with legality than morality) to remove her British citizenship. Is that creepy?


No that’s not creepy, I think it’s the only thing that can really be discussed tbh. The rest (is she Evil or is she a victim) is the creepy bit.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> For the record, me pointing out the falsity of your (and others') claims about the law isn't to say I think legality is more important than morality.  (And I've criticised the law and its application in this case, and explained the current situation isn't my preference.)


What you spend the most time talking about can reasonably be assumed to be that what you consider most important. Though with you it's a way of pretending you've got your arse on the fence while keeping your feet squarely in the middle of 'string 'em up's' garden.


----------



## Red Cat (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> But it must be true, it's in the Mail on Sunday!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think there's been a fair amount of research into this (the latter) actually, it's not a complete unknown.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Quite. Pretty much all we know is that she joined a brutal regime of rapists, murderers, and torturers.  All the efforts to excuse that are pure speculation.


And all efforts to understand it the same I suppose


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> I think there's been a fair amount of research into this (the latter) actually, it's not a complete unknown.



Not completely, no. But far from settled.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> For the record, me pointing out the falsity of your (and others') claims about the law isn't to say I think legality is more important than morality.  (And I've criticised the law and its application in this case, and explained the current situation isn't my preference.)


It isn't to say it. But it's not to deny it either. Criticising the law and its application is saying legality is important.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> And all efforts to understand it the same I suppose



No, happy for that to happen. As long as people are honest about what's fact and what's speculation.


----------



## bimble (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Quite. Pretty much all we know is that she joined a brutal regime of rapists, murderers, and torturers.  All the efforts to excuse that are pure speculation.


Fine. I haven't been reading the thread for a few months but presumably those who think being a citizen of the UK should be a conditional honour which can be removed still think that, and those who don't don't.
Carry on!


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> It isn't to say it. But it's not to deny it either. Criticising the law and its application is saying legality is important.



No it's not. If someone misstates the law, correcting that mistake isn't to endorse that law, or law generally.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

bimble said:


> Fine. I haven't been reading the thread for a few months but presumably those who think being a citizen of the UK should be a conditional honour which can be removed still think that, and those who don't don't.
> Carry on!



Broadly speaking, there's those two camps. With some in between.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> What you spend the most time talking about can reasonably be assumed to be that what you consider most important. Though with you it's a way of pretending you've got your arse on the fence while keeping your feet squarely in the middle of 'string 'em up's' garden.



What I've my time on this thread correcting has been dictated by what you (and others) have got facially wrong.

Your mischarcterisation of my position is completely dishonest. I've very limited sympathy for her, but no desire to see her strung up. I've said quite clearly what I'd prefer to happen, and why.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> No it's not. If someone misstates the law, correcting that mistake isn't to entire that law, or law generally.


when you said you'd criticised the law and its application in this case I thought you meant you'd criticised the law and its application in this case, that is the law of the land and the way it was applied by the courts. But now you seem to say you didn't mean that at all.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> when you said you'd criticised the law and its application in this case I thought you meant you'd criticised the law and its application in this case, that is the law of the land and the way it was applied by the courts. But now you seem to say you didn't mean that at all.



No, I did mean that. You're making no sense.


----------



## Red Cat (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Not completely, no. But far from settled.



I wouldn't expect something that complex to be_ settled _but it's actually probably pretty good.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> What I've my time on this thread correcting has been dictated by what you (and others) have got facially wrong.



I didn't spend long arguing the legality of it at all, perhaps an afternoon. If you'd like to review my posts I think you'll find I've been mostly concerned with the right or wrong of the situation. Thank you.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> I wouldn't expect something that complex to be_ settled _but it's actually probably pretty good.



Good enough that, absent any detail about her, you can make an assumption of grooming with what level of confidence?


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> I didn't spend long arguing the legality of it at all, perhaps an afternoon. If you'd like to review my posts I think you'll find I've been mostly concerned with the right or wrong of the situation. Thank you.



Which is why I said "and others". You're welcome.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, I did mean that. You're making no sense.


No, you're making no sense when you respond to my post with piffle about correcting people's misstatements. Have you corrected any misstatements of the law made by judges? By MPs? By ministers? Or has it all been an extended episode of the Athos show? I suggest the last, as if you have been in correspondence with those involved in the case you've kept it very quiet.


----------



## Red Cat (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Good enough that, absent any detail about her, you can make an assumption of grooming with what level of confidence?



I said assume deliberately i.e. suppose to be the case but without proof, thereby leaving it open. I think grooming is a complex process, that is not the same as coercion.

My main point was that we don't have any detail about her to consider how that may have come about, in a quite nuanced way. Not sure why you've jumped on the assumption bit like you're trying to prove me wrong about something.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> No, you're making no sense when you respond to my post with piffle about correcting people's misstatements. Have you corrected any misstatements of the law made by judges? By MPs? By ministers? Or has it all been an extended episode of the Athos show? I suggest the last, as if you have been in correspondence with those involved in the case you've kept it very quiet.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> No, you're making no sense when you respond to my post with piffle about correcting people's misstatements. Have you corrected any misstatements of the law made by judges? By MPs? By ministers? Or has it all been an extended episode of the Athos show? I suggest the last, as if you have been in correspondence with those involved in the case you've kept it very quiet.



I've corrected the misstatements of the law made by other posters.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> I said assume deliberately i.e. suppose to be the case but without proof, thereby leaving it open. I think grooming is a complex process, that is not the same as coercion.
> 
> My main point was that we don't have any detail about her to consider how that may have come about, in a quite nuanced way. Not sure why you've jumped on the assumption bit like you're trying to prove me wrong about something.



I'm not trying to do that (and, in any event, it's not really provable either way).  I'm genuinely interested in what level of confidence you think we can have in such an assumption given what we know about her and this field (where I'm sure you know more than me).


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I've corrected the misstatements of the law made by other posters.


You've made legal 'misstatements'  yourself, repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've made legal 'misstatements'  yourself, repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.


Yeh but legal misstatements are never made by athos


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh but legal misstatements are never made by athos


Yes. It's just 'bollocks' when he does it.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I've corrected the misstatements of the law made by other posters.


by other posters. But as maomao observes never those you've made


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've made legal 'misstatements'  yourself, repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.



I don't think that's been proven. (Though, in any event, since she was entitled to obtain one, she could have gone through that process.)


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> by other posters. But as maomao observes never those you've made



By all means point them out.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> ... repeatedly claiming that she could have renounced her Bangladeshi citizenship when in fact this can't be done without a Bangladeshi passport.



Can you post a link to this?


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Can you post a link to this?


Strung out posted on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think that's been proven. (Though, in any event, since she was entitled to obtain one, she could have gone through that process.)


I'm led to believe there have been some difficulties experienced by people in northern Iraq and eastern Syria attending Bangladeshi consular services in Damascus and Baghdad. How do you suggest she should have obtained the documents and so forth necessary for a successful passport application?


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I'm led to believe there have been some difficulties experienced by people in northern Iraq and eastern Syria attending Bangladeshi consular services in Damascus and Baghdad. How do you suggest she should have obtained the documents and so forth necessary for a successful passport application?



Perhaps she should have done so prior to joining that gang of murderers.


----------



## Red Cat (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not trying to do that (and, in any event, it's not really provable either way).  I'm genuinely interested in what level of confidence you think we can have in such an assumption given what we know about her and this field (where I'm sure you know more than me).



I'll have to think more about how to answer this. 

re. the field, I wouldn't claim to know a great deal at all, it's a specialism, but one with a lot of research behind it, well funded.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Can you post a link to this?



It was dealt with earlier. 



strung out said:


> *Requirements for Renunciation of Bangladesh nationality*
> 
> The following documents are required for renunciation (Cancellation) of Bangladesh nationality and obtain certificate of renunciation from the Embassy:
> 
> ...





Athos said:


> Thanks. That seems directly contradictory to what's here:  Refworld | Bangladesh: Whether an individual who has renounced citizenship of Bangladesh by acquiring citizenship in Singapore is able to reclaim citizenship; the requirements and procedures for reacquiring citizenship
> 
> Which says "In correspondence with the Research Directorate, an official at the Canadian high commission in Dhaka stated that Bangladeshis who are applying for citizenship in a country that does not accept dual citizenship can obtain a renunciation certificate from the Ministry of Home Affairs or from a Bangladeshi embassy/high commission abroad (Canada 10 Jan. 2012). The official added that a person seeking to renounce Bangladeshi citizenship needs only to write a letter to the Ministry of Home Affairs indicating his or her intention and a certificate will be issued (ibid.)."


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Perhaps she should have done so prior to joining that gang of murderers.


Ah by building a time machine. I hoped you'd be able to suggest a rather more realistic way


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Ah by building a time machine. I hoped you'd be able to suggest a rather more realistic way



No, by doing it before she left.


----------



## Spymaster (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> It was dealt with earlier.


Yes, I just saw that.

It just looks like the requirements of renouncing citizenship for those who do have a passport. There'll likely be other methods for those who don't.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> It was dealt with earlier.


The second doesn't disprove the first. It says how Bangladeshi citizens who have entered Singapore as Bangladeshi citizens (and therefore have Bangladeshi passports) can renounce their passports. It does not address what a British citizen in possession of theoretical Bangladeshi citizenship with no documents to prove it should do. Presumably while it says they merely have to write a letter they need to include some proof of ID or people could go around renouncing other people's citizenship. Do you have any proof that this can actually be done without a passport or have you just cherry picked an over-simplified explanation from a non legal document and used it to refute the actual requirements of a Bangladeshi consulate?


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> The second doesn't disprove the first. It says how Bangladeshi citizens who have entered Singapore as Bangladeshi citizens (and therefore have Bangladeshi passports) can renounce their passports. It does not address what a British citizen in possession of theoretical Bangladeshi citizenship with no documents to prove it should do. Presumably while it says they merely have to write a letter they need to include some proof of ID or people could go around renouncing other people's citizenship. Do you have any proof that this can actually be done without a passport or have you just cherry picked an over-simplified explanation from a non legal document and used it to refute the actual requirements of a Bangladeshi consulate?



She's not a theoretical citizen; she is a legal citizen of Bangladesh, according to that state's law (notwithstanding what some of its politicians claim).

You've misunderstood the link; it doesn't say what you think it does.  But, in any event, it's fair to say I don't know the procedure is for renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship where someone doesn't have a passport.  The link I posted suggests one way of doing it, but I accept that appears at odds with the other link - the position is unclear (though it'd be very strange if there wasn't such a procedure).

But, as I've said, even if a passport was required, she could've got one then renounced Bangladeshi citizenship.  (Accepting that's largely theoretical as: first, she might not have known about it; and, secondly, I suspect she never anticipated the fall of IS.)

Either way, you're far from proving that I was wrong in law to say she could have renounced her legal citizenship.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> You've misunderstood the link; it doesn't say what you think it does.  But, in any event, it's fair to say I don't know the procedure is for renouncing Bangladeshi citizenship where someone doesn't have a passport.  The link I posted suggests one way of doing it, but I accept that appears at odds with the other link - the position is unclear (though it'd be very strange if there wasn't such a procedure).
> 
> But, as I've said, even if a passport was required, she could've got one then renounced Bangladeshi citizenship.  (Accepting that's largely theoretical as: first, she might not have known about it; and, secondly, I suspect she never anticipated the fall of IS.)
> 
> Either way, you're far from proving that I was wrong in law to say she could have renounced her legal citizenship.


Your link concerns renunciation by acquisition of a new nationality. It therefore doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand where no new nationality has been sought.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Your link concerns renunciation by acquisition of a new nationality. It therefore doesn't have any bearing on the matter at hand where no new nationality has been sought.


No it doesn't; that would occur inevitably as a matter of law (s it would've in her case on reaching 21). That link concerns renunciation by notification to the Bangladeshi authorities.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> She's not a theoretical citizen; she is a legal citizen of Bangladesh, according to that state's law (notwithstanding what some of its politicians claim).


Theoretical is absolutely the right word. She has those rights but the Bangladeshi state is unaware of her existence and she has no papers to prove it. In fact when asked, the Bangladeshi state (rightly or wrongly according to their own law) denied she was a citizen. I can't think of a better word than theoretical to describe that. Can you? If the state won't give her citizenship then it's obviously not _actual_ citizenship.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> No it doesn't; that would occur inevitably as a matter of law (s it would've in her case on reaching 21). That link concerns renunciation by notification to the Bangladeshi authorities.


It's not a legal document, it's reported speech.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's not a legal document, it's reported speech.



The other link wasn't a 'legal document' either.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Theoretical is absolutely the right word. She has those rights but the Bangladeshi state is unaware of her existence and she has no papers to prove it. In fact when asked, the Bangladeshi state (rightly or wrongly according to their own law) denied she was a citizen. I can't think of a better word than theoretical to describe that. Can you? If the state won't give her citizenship then it's obviously not _actual_ citizenship.



That's the difference between _de jure_ and _de facto_ citizenship; under English law only the former is significant for the purposes of the stripping her British citizenship.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> The other link wasn't a 'legal document' either.


It was the detailed instructions on how to renounce citizenship from the Bangladeshi consulate in Berlin. Yours is reported speech by another party. Do you genuinely believe that citizenship can be renounced by a simple letter with no proof of identity?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> No it doesn't; that would occur inevitably as a matter of law. That link concerns renunciation by notification to the Bangladeshi authorities.


only it's not a Bangladeshi website, it's not a legal website (you'll notice it doesn't cite any pesky laws), it is based on a Canadian diplomat's correspondence, you've adduced no evidence to show that this 2012 view obtained in 2015 (or if it was even valid when put on the internet)


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> That's the difference between _de jure_ and _de facto_ citizenship; under English law only the former is significant for the purposes of the stripping her British citizenship.


I wasn't discussing the results of the court case, those have been widely publicised. I was discussing the fundamental dishonesty of your posting style. My next point was going to be your regular  and fallacious appeals to the authority of the courts to back up tangentially related points but you've demonstrated it nicely yourself.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> It was the detailed instructions on how to renounce citizenship from the Bangladeshi consulate in Berlin. Yours is reported speech by another party. Do you genuinely believe that citizenship can be renounced by a simple letter with no proof of identity?



I've explained I don't know the process for renouncing without a passport.  And adduced evidence to show its not altogether as clear as you'd claim. But, in any event, even on your version of the law, she could have renounced (by applying for a passport first).


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> I wasn't discussing the results of the court case, those have been widely publicised. I was discussing the fundamental dishonesty of your posting style. My next point was going to be your regular  and fallacious appeals to the authority of the courts to back up tangentially related points but you've demonstrated it nicely yourself.



I don't appeal to the authority of the courts. You make false aims about what the law says, which I correct.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't appeal to the authority of the courts. You make false aims about what the law says, which I correct.


What was my false claim?


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> only it's not a Bangladeshi website, it's not a legal website (you'll notice it doesn't cite any pesky laws), it is based on a Canadian diplomat's correspondence, you've adduced no evidence to show that this 2012 view obtained in 2015 (or if it was even valid when put on the internet)



I could say the same about the procedural rules of the Berlin embassy!


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> What was my false claim?



You've made a number of false claims about the law, throughout the thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I could say the same about the procedural rules of the Berlin embassy!


your ascent to whataboutery is your best contribution to the thread


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> your ascent to whataboutery is your best contribution to the thread


Something for you to aspire to.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> You've made a number of false claims about the law, throughout the thread.


Not recently, certainly not this year. But you referred to the court case on this page to correct my use of the word 'theoretical'. Whatever the position of the racist UK state and its courts there's a fundamental difference between citizenship which is actively held and citizenship that isn't.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not recently, certainly not this year. But you referred to the court case on this page to correct my use of the word 'theoretical'. Whatever the position of the racist UK state and its courts there's a fundamental difference between citizenship which is actively held and citizenship that isn't.



Yes, I agree that there's a significant difference between _de jure_ and _de facto_ citizenship; never said otherwise.  From the outset, you suggested this was legally significant in the English court proceedings; as things stand, rightly or wrongly, it's not.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, I agree that there's a significant difference between _de jure_ and _de facto_ citizenship; never said otherwise.


You _implied_ otherwise by using a fallacious appeal to authority. And I don't speak Latin.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Something for you to aspire to.


Your best contribution to this thread, if physical, would be the sort of thing people swerve to avoid treading in.


----------



## BillRiver (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, I agree that there's a significant difference between _de jure_ and _de facto_ citizenship; never said otherwise.



When my brother was becoming a solicitor in the 90's (and I was his study buddy) we used to play a game where we only spoke in legalise, for no other reason than that it amused us and annoyed others.

With all due respect it appears to me that my learned friend Athos has been playing the aforementioned game on this thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> You _implied_ otherwise by using a fallacious appeal to authority. And I don't speak Latin.


Nor does Athos, like Boris Johnson he just likes dropping a phrase in here and there for the air of authority he thinks it provides


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> You _implied_ otherwise by using a fallacious appeal to authority.



I'm afraid this is another example of you misunderstanding the point.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> With all due respect it appears to me that my learned friend Athos has been playing the aforementioned game on this thread


On this thread? There's about another 20,000 posts I'd like m'lud to take into consideration.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Nor does Athos, like Boris Johnson he just likes dropping a phrase in here and there for the air of authority he thinks it provides



I don't; I didn't benefit from your education.

But it's the perfect shorthand for the dichotomy maomao was describing.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm afraid this is another example of you misunderstanding the point.


Well maybe it's an example of you missing the point. I wasn't discussing the court case. I don't know why else you would reference it other than that spurious appeals to legal authority are the basis of most of your posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't; I didn't benefit from your education.
> 
> But it's the perfect shorthand for the dichotomy maomao was describing.


No indeed, if you had you never would have proffered a link with the evidentiary value in this matter of a turd. Oh, and I don't know what you think my education consisted of but you're utterly wrong if you think it gave me any knowledge of Latin


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well maybe it's an example of you missing the point. I wasn't discussing the court case. I don't know why else you would reference it other than that spurious appeals to legal authority are the basis of most of your posts.



It's often hard to understand what you are saying, as you flip-flop between commenting on the legal and moral position, as it suits you.  In this instance, from the technicalities of legally renouncing citizenship to the rights and wrongs of what you call 'theoretical' and 'actual' citizenship.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's often hard to understand what you are saying


I was commenting on your posting style and general dishonesty throughout. If you found it difficult to shoehorn parts of my posts into your limited areas of expertise that would seem to be your problem and not mine.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> I was commenting on your posting style and general dishonesty throughout. If you found it difficult to shoehorn parts of my posts into your limited areas of expertise that would seem to be your problem and not mine.



You flit from one thing to another, as it suits you, desperately trying - unsuccessfully - to score points.

Your contributions to this thread have been to consistently get the law wrong, to make factual claims that you've been unable to support with any evidence, and to dishonestly mischaracterise others' positions.


----------



## glitch hiker (May 2, 2021)

bmd said:


> Given that most people, all of them perhaps, on this thread will feel zero impact of her return, what's the problem with it? My problem with it is that it feels like we would be saying that you can go off and fully support our enemies and then when that's no longer your thing then you can come back here and, possibly, begin recruiting more 15 year old girls for the ISIS nonces. I get that we would be sacrificing her if we did this and my god she has had a shit life since being there but I guess my concern lies with the future Shamimas.


I'm not seeing how allowing her, a clear victim of exploitation IMO, to return would create future Shamina's.

I would argue that, assuming she isn't being deliberately mendacious and doesn't herself have a scheme, she could work helping dissuade people from following in her footsteps. I think that would be immeasurably more beneficial


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> You flit from one thing to another, as it suits you, desperately trying - unsuccessfully - to score points.
> 
> Your contributions to this thread have been to consistently get the law wrong, to make factual claims that you've been unable to support with any evidence, and to dishonestly mischaracterise others' positions.


I'd rather be a bit scattergun but morally consistent than feign objectivity in order to provide backing for some of the repugnant views on this thread.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'd rather be a bit scattergun but morally consistent than feign objectivity in order to provide backing for some of the repugnant views on this thread.



This is what you do. Rather than successfully argue with what I've actually said, you vaguely mischaracterise my position, notwithstanding that I've repeatedly explicitly said: I don't agree with this law; I don't agree with how the power was used in this case; and that I don't want to see her rot in limbo, or be strung up.

In fact, the only really signification differences between us are that: you seem convinced (despite having no evidence) that she was coerced, whereas I don't know what happened; you seem convinced (despite having no idea what the intelligence might say) that she'd not pose a risk of she returns to the UK, whereas I don't know; you seem to think the English courts have applied the law wrong (albeit you haven't been able to explain how), whereas I don't; and, you're wedded to the imperialist idea of 'British justice for British citizens', whereas I'd like a fair trial as near as possible to where she committed any alleged crimes.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> This is what you do. Rather than successfully argue with what I've actually said, you vaguely mischaracterise my position, notwithstanding that I've repeatedly explicitly said: I don't agree with this law; I don't agree with how the power was used in this case; and that I don't want to see her rot in limbo, or be strung up.
> 
> In fact, the only really signification differences between us are that: you seem convinced (despite having no evidence) that she was coerced, whereas I don't know what happened; you seem convinced (despite having no idea what the intelligence might say) that she'd not pose a risk of she returns to the UK, whereas I don't know; you seem to think the English courts have applied the law wrong (albeit you haven't been able to explain how), whereas I don't; and, you're wedded to the imperialist idea of 'British justice for British citizens', whereas I'd like a fair trial as near as possible to where she committed any alleged crimes.


You've entirely misrepresented my position there btw.

I don't expect her to be returned to the UK and have said so several times. I don't think she should be prevented from returning but I haven't commented on the level of risk she would pose if she does make her own way back. I certainly don't think the army should be sent to fetch her as I believe the armed forces should be disbanded permanently and that the UK have no business being in the region in a military capacity.  I've also, earlier in the thread, said she should be tried locally, though I've personally (not on the thread) reexamined that in light of Kurdish requests for European countries to repatriate their citizens (possibly as they're not as keen on committing genocide as half the posters on this thread). 

I have complained about the racist UK state and their use of a racist law and I have complained about the violent and repugnant rhetoric directed at a young woman whom it seems likely was groomed as a child into something that has ruined her life as well as ending those of her children.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> This is what you do. Rather than successfully argue with what I've actually said, you vaguely mischaracterise my position, notwithstanding that I've repeatedly explicitly said: I don't agree with this law; I don't agree with how the power was used in this case; and that I don't want to see her rot in limbo, or be strung up.
> 
> In fact, the only really signification differences between us are that: you seem convinced (despite having no evidence) that she was coerced, whereas I don't know what happened; you seem convinced (despite having no idea what the intelligence might say) that she'd not pose a risk of she returns to the UK, whereas I don't know; you seem to think the English courts have applied the law wrong (albeit you haven't been able to explain how), whereas I don't; and, you're wedded to the imperialist idea of 'British justice for British citizens', whereas I'd like a fair trial as near as possible to where she committed any alleged crimes.


Whoa there. Committed any alleged crimes? Rather perjorative. Trying her before she faces a court. I hope you meant as near as possible to where she allegedly committed any crimes.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> You've entirely misrepresented my position there btw.
> 
> I don't expect her to be returned to the UK and have said so several times. I don't think she should be prevented from returning but I haven't commented on the level of risk she would pose if she does make her own way back. I certainly don't think the army should be sent to fetch her as I believe the armed forces should be disbanded permanently and that the UK have no business being in the region in a military capacity.  I've also, earlier in the thread, said she should be tried locally, though I've personally (not on the thread) reexamined that in light of Kurdish requests for European countries to repatriate their citizens (possibly as they're not as keen on committing genocide as half the posters on this thread).
> 
> I have complained about the racist UK state and their use of a racist law and I have complained about the violent and repugnant rhetoric directed at a young woman whom it seems likely was groomed as a child into something that has ruined her life as well as ending those of her children.



If I have misrepresented you I apologise (I do find it hard to follow what you're saying at times).

But, if your position is as quoted, then what are we arguing about?  Our positions aren't that far apart.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Whoa there. Committed any alleged crimes? Rather perjorative. Trying her before she faces a court. I hope you meant as near as possible to where she allegedly committed any crimes.


I'll happily go with your wording, since there's no material difference.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> If I have misrepresented you I apologise (I do find it hard to follow what you're saying at times).
> 
> But, if your position is as quoted, then what are we arguing about?  Our positions aren't that far apart.


Because by prioritising correcting minor legal errors over the moral issues at stake you provide cover and a defence for the vile fantasists who want her strung or blown up.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'll happily go with your wording, since there's no material difference.


Have you so soon forgotten your post about her being a murderer? Her being part of a gang of murderers? No allegedly there


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because by prioritising correcting minor legal errors over the moral issues at stake you provide cover and a defense for the vile fantasists who want her strung or blown up.



They're not minor, they're often fundamental.  And it's a bit far fetched to say that me correcting blatant mistakes about the law is providing cover for a position with which I've explicitly disagreed.  I don't think it does anyone any favors to advance (or turn a blind eye to) fallacious arguments on her behalf.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Have you so soon forgotten your post about her being a murderer? Her being part of a gang of murderers? No allegedly there



I don't think I said she's a murderer, though ISIS (which she joined) is a murderous regime.


----------



## strung out (May 2, 2021)

For that it's with, I think maomao  is making some of the most sense on this thread, particularly over the last few pages. I admire and agree with his moral consistency throughout.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> which I've explicitly disagreed


I haven't seen you explicitly disagree with them. Just some faux fence sitting. Perhaps you could provide links to some posts where you've done this.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think I said she's a murderer, though ISIS (which she joined) is a murderous regime.


You said she joined a gang of murderers. And what characterises the members of a gang of murderers is er that they're murderers.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> I haven't seen you explicitly disagree with them. Just some faux fence sitting. Perhaps you could provide links to some posts where you've done this.



For instance, I linked to some of them below this quote.



Athos said:


> I'm not doing that, though.  I've said previously that this wasn't my preferred outcome, and criticised the government's actions (see below).  (That's not altered by me pointing out that much of the criticism is factually and legally weak.)


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> You said she joined a gang of murderers. And what characterises the members of a gang of murderers is er that they're murderers.



Oh come on, this is a pathetic level of nit-picking, even by your low standards. Are you seriously objecting to the characterisation of ISIS as murders?


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> For instance, I linked to some of them below this quote.


That's awfully thin gruel and deals solely with the court case. I suppose it's okay to have a hobby horse but you shouldn't ride it all over unrelated arguments. There are several themes worthy of discussing here but you seem solely interested in the legality of the British state's role in it about which I give very few fucks indeed.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's awfully thin gruel and deals solely with the court case. I suppose it's okay to have a hobby horse but you shouldn't ride it all over unrelated arguments. There are several themes worthy of discussing here but you seem solely interested in the legality of the British state's role in it about which I give very few fucks indeed.



It doesn't deal solely with the court case at all.  My criticism of the law is that it creates two-tier citizenship - that's a moral and pragmatic issue.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Oh come on, this is a pathetic level of nit-picking, even by your low standards. Are you seriously objecting to the characterisation of ISIS as murders?


Yeh this is hardly the first time on this thread you turn out not to mean what you've said. Like that bit about criticising the law which turned out to mean correcting what other people had said. Nit-picking to you, of course. I'd be surprised if you tried to undermine it any other way.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Yeh this is hardly the first time on this thread you turn out not to mean what you've said. Like that bit about criticising the law which turned out to mean correcting what other people had said. Nit-picking to you, of course. I'd be surprised if you tried to undermine it any other way.



I do mean what I said: ISIS are murderers. It's you who seems to take issue with that for no better reason than petty point-scoring.

And I've quite clearly said it's a bad law.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> And I've quite clearly said it's a bad law.


So why are the majority (or at least a plurality) of your posts on this thread defending the law as used? Correcting people's misunderstandings of the law might provide you with feelings of otherwise unobtainable self-worth but when you keep doing it and don't post about much else, that's what you're going to be judged by.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I do mean what I said: ISIS are murderers. It's you who seems to take issue with that for no better reason than petty point-scoring.
> 
> And I've quite clearly said it's a bad law.


And you said she joined Isis, ergo... I haven't said daesh aren't murderers


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> So why are the majority (or at least a plurality) of your posts on this thread defending the law as used?



Correcting spurious claims that the law wasn't properly applied isn't defending the content of that law.  And it's important because: first, its a dead end in terms of her pursuing her case; and, secondly, is mischaracterises this case as an anomaly of application rather than something the law specifically allows.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> And you said she joined Isis, ergo... I haven't said daesh aren't murderers



I stand by the statements: 'ISIS are murderers' and 'she joined ISIS'. But I don't belive anybody seriously thinks I'm accusing her of murder (even you - you're just nit-picking trying to score points).


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

strung out said:


> For that it's with, I think maomao  is making some of the most sense on this thread, particularly over the last few pages. I admire and agree with his moral consistency throughout.



I actually agree that his heart is in the right place, even if his thoughts are all over the show.


----------



## maomao (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I actually agree that his heart is in the right place, even if his thoughts are all over the show.


They only appear all over the place to someone who essentially just makes the same post repeatedly. For a couple of decades.


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

maomao said:


> They only appear all over the place to someone who essentially just makes the same post repeatedly. For a couple of decades.



You described them as "scattergun" yourself.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> I stand by the statements: 'ISIS are murderers' and 'she joined ISIS'. But I don't belive anybody seriously thinks I'm accusing her of murder (even you - you're just nit-picking trying to score points).


You're making it very clear with eg she should have thought of that before joining that gang of murderers that you think that even if she didn't herself kill someone she was at least complicit in it. So if that's not the case perhaps you could outline the things you think she may have done, the heads as it were under which she might be charged


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> You're making it very clear with eg she should have thought of that before joining that gang of murderers that you think that even if she didn't herself kill someone she was at least complicit in it.



Yes, I think that joining ISIS is to be complicit, to a greater or lesser extent, with its actions.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 2, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, I think that.


And it's my understanding that being complicit in murder can easily be a crime itself, as several possible crimes leap to mind eg joint enterprise, conspiracy, being an accessory...


----------



## Athos (May 2, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> And it's my understanding that being complicit in murder can easily be a crime itself, as several possible crimes leap to mind eg joint enterprise, conspiracy, being an accessory...



It can be. But there's no evidence (of which I'm aware) that the level of her complicity is high enough to implicate her in those offences.


----------



## bmd (May 2, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I'm not seeing how allowing her, a clear victim of exploitation IMO, to return would create future Shamina's.
> 
> I would argue that, assuming she isn't being deliberately mendacious and doesn't herself have a scheme, she could work helping dissuade people from following in her footsteps. I think that would be immeasurably more beneficial



That would be awesome but since neither of us have a crystal ball I have to go on what I know. Yes, she has been exploited and her whole sorry story is surely a cautionary tale for any other young woman who wishes to seek adventure out in those lands but I can't imagine her feeling that her tribe is people in the UK and if she does make it back here then I'm sure there will be plenty of people ready and waiting to spell that out for her. She has made it clear that she does not have any sympathy for victims of ISIS. If there is any time that someone should, at the very least, show some feeling towards them then surely that time would be when our gatekeepers are considering her future? Are you saying that you feel confident that she would have a change of heart once she is back here?


----------



## glitch hiker (May 2, 2021)

bmd said:


> That would be awesome but since neither of us have a crystal ball I have to go on what I know. Yes, she has been exploited and her whole sorry story is surely a cautionary tale for any other young woman who wishes to seek adventure out in those lands but I can't imagine her feeling that her tribe is people in the UK and if she does make it back here then I'm sure there will be plenty of people ready and waiting to spell that out for her. She has made it clear that she does not have any sympathy for victims of ISIS. If there is any time that someone should, at the very least, show some feeling towards them then surely that time would be when our gatekeepers are considering her future? Are you saying that you feel confident that she would have a change of heart once she is back here?


I don't believe she is a threat and I feel that her contribution, which I would hope she'd be willing to make, toward deterring future radicalised kids, is of greater value than the feelings of outraged reactionaries or yourself.

Of course I could well be wrong, I don't know her. However the whole thing makes me deeply uncomfortable; our racist state and it's racist home secretary happy to throw a child to the dogs just to appease rabid curtain twitchers sickens me, quite frankly. Leaving someone fucked up like that for the rest of their life just because of being radicalised themselves as a kid isn't a reason for the Tories and the right wing press barons to wash their hands of her


----------



## Hollis (May 2, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I don't believe she is a threat and I feel that her contribution, which I would hope she'd be willing to make, toward deterring future radicalised kids, is of greater value than the feelings of outraged reactionaries or yourself.
> 
> Of course I could well be wrong, I don't know her. However the whole thing makes me deeply uncomfortable; our racist state and it's racist home secretary happy to throw a child to the dogs just to appease rabid curtain twitchers sickens me, quite frankly. Leaving someone fucked up like that for the rest of their life just because of being radicalised themselves as a kid isn't a reason for the Tories and the right wing press barons to wash their hands of her



Yeah - there's a good little piece here about her, politicians, and the public response which I largely agree with.  Legal arguments aside, this is what's being played out with the whole Begum story.

"She's Not Likeable": Shamima Begum, Sex Stereotypes,  and the Scourge of Emotionalism in Public Discourse


----------



## glitch hiker (May 2, 2021)

Hollis said:


> Yeah - there's a good little piece here about her, politicians, and the public response which I largely agree with.  Legal arguments aside, this is what's being played out with the whole Begum story.
> 
> "She's Not Likeable": Shamima Begum, Sex Stereotypes,  and the Scourge of Emotionalism in Public Discourse


I'm not sure I'm comfortable with wanting (demanding?) she show remorse or emotion, in some prescribed way, for the victims of ISIS. Are they _her _victims?

Perhaps that says more about me than her


----------



## BillRiver (May 2, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I'm not sure I'm comfortable with wanting (demanding?) she show remorse or emotion, in some prescribed way, for the victims of ISIS. Are they _her _victims?
> 
> Perhaps that says more about me than her



Me too.

Also I don't think she's free to speak her mind (if she even knows what she thinks right now) anyway, where she currently is.


----------



## bmd (May 3, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> I don't believe she is a threat and I feel that her contribution, which I would hope she'd be willing to make, toward deterring future radicalised kids, is of greater value than the feelings of outraged reactionaries or yourself.
> 
> Of course I could well be wrong, I don't know her. However the whole thing makes me deeply uncomfortable; our racist state and it's racist home secretary happy to throw a child to the dogs just to appease rabid curtain twitchers sickens me, quite frankly. Leaving someone fucked up like that for the rest of their life just because of being radicalised themselves as a kid isn't a reason for the Tories and the right wing press barons to wash their hands of her



I completely agree that it is a wholly shite situation. I am really not sure what I think. Well, I am but it's a thought that I'm not comfortable with, which is why I'm here trying to understand this a bit more. 

She frightens me. That sounds ridiculous but it maybe would not seem quite so ridiculous if my family or I were facing someone like her with a knife in their hand. What are the chances of that? I don't want to find out. Speaking statistically, are there dangers closer to home that would probably finish me off before a knife-wielding young woman got to me? Almost certainly. Are they the kind of danger that would seek me out and wish for my horrendous end? No. 

So what do I do? Think of her and her horrible situation or my family and the vanishingly small possibility of theirs?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bmd said:


> I completely agree that it is a wholly shite situation. I am really not sure what I think. Well, I am but it's a thought that I'm not comfortable with, which is why I'm here trying to understand this a bit more.
> 
> She frightens me. That sounds ridiculous but it maybe would not seem quite so ridiculous if my family or I were facing someone like her with a knife in their hand. What are the chances of that? I don't want to find out. Speaking statistically, are there dangers closer to home that would probably finish me off before a knife-wielding young woman got to me? Almost certainly. Are they the kind of danger that would seek me out and wish for my horrendous end? No.
> 
> So what do I do? Think of her and her horrible situation or my family and the vanishingly small possibility of theirs?


I am surprised you're so concerned about her thousands of miles away when hundreds of people who actually fought with daesh have returned to the UK. If they can come back why shouldn't she? Back in 2019 the ft reported that about 360 of 900 who went to fight with daesh had returned


----------



## bmd (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I am surprised you're so concerned about her thousands of miles away when hundreds of people who actually fought with daesh have returned to the UK. If they can come back why shouldn't she? Back in 2019 the ft reported that about 360 of 900 who went to fight with daesh had returned



If I had a chance to voice my opinion of each one then I imagine it would have been almost identical to the one I have voiced here. But then you're not surprised at all. I think what you meant is that there are a lot of people here already that would be willing to saw my head from my shoulders, given half the chance? Yes, there are. I am quite concerned about that too. But I would also like to voice my concern about Shamina, here, if that's ok with you? I guess she is the scapegoat for all of ISIS' behaviour, in my mind. Or, if not the scapegoat then she is the person nearest to my fears over ISIS being on these shores.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I am surprised you're so concerned about her thousands of miles away when hundreds of people who actually fought with daesh have returned to the UK. If they can come back why shouldn't she? Back in 2019 the ft reported that about 360 of 900 who went to fight with daesh had returned


Perhaps they lacked her commitment to the cause.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Perhaps they lacked her commitment to the cause.


I thought you dealt in facts and eschewed speculation


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> I thought you dealt in facts and eschewed speculation



Unlike others, I'm not presenting a possibility as a fact. Hence the use of the word 'perhaps'.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Unlike others, I'm not presenting a possibility as a fact. Hence the use of the word 'maybe'.


this does not prevent it being speculation


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> this does not prevent it being speculation



But not one on which I'm proposing basing any decisions.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> But not one on which I'm proposing basing any decisions.


By god you're a wriggler


----------



## Jay Park (May 3, 2021)

Going nowhere this is it?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> By god you're a wriggler



No, I've been clear and consistent throughout that we don't know the circumstances behind her going (and staying there), or the risk she poses now.

Attempts to justify her return by making stuff up about this two issues are dishonest.

I agree that this law should be challenged (albeit not in the basis of some of the spurious claims on this thread that the court has got it wrong).  But that should be done honestly, weighing up the fact that she might pose a risk, and whether or not that's something we just accept as the price of preventing two-tier citizenship, or whether we accept other measures (e.g. increased surveillance powers) to offset any such risk.


----------



## not-bono-ever (May 3, 2021)

Compromise 

bring her home

Then string her up

everybody wins

/ bored with this


----------



## Red Cat (May 3, 2021)

cba


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> whether or not that's something we just accept as the price of preventing two-tier citizenship, or whether we accept other measures (e.g. increased surveillance powers) to offset any such risk.



You don't think the current surveillance powers for those suspected/convicted of terrorist offences (control orders, etc.)  are enough?


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> You don't think the current surveillance powers for those suspected/convicted of terrorist offences (control orders, etc.)  are enough?


They're not enough because it has happened a fair few times hasn't it that after a violent event the news says this person was on the list of known terrorist-risk related people but they weren't in the top 100 or whatever so they weren't being watched. 
I think the reality is that it's impossible to have every single one of the known / assumed risk people (including thjose who once liked an Isis post on facebook or whatveer) followed by a team of watchers all day long.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> They're not enough because it has happened a fair few times hasn't it that after a violent event the news says this person was on the list of known terrorist-related people but they weren't in the top 100 or whatever so they weren't being watched. I think the reality is that its impossible to have every single one of the known risk people followed by a team of watchers all day long.



She would be "in the top 100 or whatever" though wouldn't she.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> She would be "in the top 100 or whatever" though wouldn't she.


Maybe. For how long, the rest of her days?


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> Maybe. For how long, the rest of her days?



Yes, I would expect so.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Apologies, my bad, I forgot they're not called control orders anymore - they're called TPIM's now.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 - Wikipedia


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Yes, I would expect so.


I think it was the london bridge attack, i read that the man had been taken off the 'very dangerous, use resources to watch him intensely' list because he had successfully convinced psychologists - specialists in this area- that he renounced those beliefs and had reformed. It is a tricky thing.
yep, he'd successfully completed - twice! - the government's "Desistance and Disengagement Programme" (DDP), which i think theyre trying to work on now to make it somehow more effective.





__





						Fact sheet: Desistance and Disengagement Programme - Home Office in the media
					

News and updates from Home Office Media




					homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk
				












						De-radicalisation approach needs 'fundamental review' - Prison Officers' Association
					

The father of London Bridge victim Jack Merritt says longer sentences are "not a solution" to extremism.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## bellaozzydog (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Or that potential benefits of her return are outweighed by the risks.



Politically/optics


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> I think it was the london bridge attack, i read that the man had been taken off the 'very dangerous, use resources to watch him intensely' list because he had successfully convinced psychologists - specialists in this area- that he renounced those beliefs and had reformed. It is a tricky thing.
> yep, he'd successfully completed the government's "Desistance and Disengagement Programme" (DDP), which i think theyre trying to work on now to make it somehow more effective.
> 
> 
> ...



If I remember rightly Usman Khan was never subject to a TPIM ?

DDP is a different thing altogether.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

I see your TPIM legislation but cant make much sense of it, or whether it would actually stop someone committing an offence. You can't put someone under preventative house arrest, literally, can you, for years? 
Even practically speaking how would that work would the government drop food off for them?


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> I see your TPIM legislation but cant make much sense of it, or whether it would actually stop someone committing an offence. You can't put someone under preventative house arrest, literally, can you, for years?
> Even practically speaking how would that work would the government drop food off for them?



This might help clarify:

Unconvicted terrorism suspects face indefinite controls under UK bill

"There are already 14 measures that can be imposed, including overnight residence requirements, relocation to another part of the UK, police reporting, an electronic monitoring tag, exclusion from specific places, limits on association, limits on the use of financial services, and use of telephones and computers, and a ban on holding travel documents."


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> This might help clarify:
> 
> Unconvicted terrorism suspects face indefinite controls under UK bill
> 
> "There are already 14 measures that can be imposed, including overnight residence requirements, relocation to another part of the UK, police reporting, an electronic monitoring tag, exclusion from specific places, limits on association, limits on the use of financial services, and use of telephones and computers, and a ban on holding travel documents."


Yes but if you were desirous of attacking people at random with a knife, for instance, in your local tescos, none of that would stop you would it. The house arrest bit being only at night time is particularly weird.
I haven't got any suggestions, I think the kind of restrictions that would actually prevent such a thing, if the person wanted to do it, don't exist short of lifetime imprisonment based on perceived risk of them _maybe_ doing it one day, which isn't any kind of answer either.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> Yes but if you were desirous of attacking people at random with a knife, for instance, in your local tescos, none of that would stop you would it.



I used to look after the children of a man who was subject to a control order (pre tpim but similar). I was hired by his legal team to do so.

His house and landlines were bugged (state had proved this in legal hearing prior to me being hired).

Nobody in his house was allowed a mobile phone, computer, any means of accessing the Internet.

He had to phone in from his home phone so many times per day he didn't have time to go to mosque or shops in between phone calls.

The phone call was to a computer that struggled with his accent, leading to raids on the home by armed cops frequently.

Nobody could visit him without first applying to the government and being "screened". No Muslim would do so for fear of being targeted so he (and his wife and kids) were 100% socially isolated.

His lawyers had won an exception to that for them and their employees but it was a hard battle.

There was more but this is what I remember most strongly.

Yes I do think it stopped him from attacking anyone, not that I think he would have otherwise.

ETA - Forgot to add, he was tagged. When this went faulty more armed cops would raid, within minutes of any problem occurring.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver bloody hell that sounds unbearable, for the family. And yet, i don't know why that sort of treatment would prevent the kind of solo / spontaneous attacks that seem more common that the more organised kind.


----------



## bmd (May 3, 2021)

Christ almighty, what a fucking awful situation to live within. Appreciate the insight, BillRiver


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> BillRiver bloody hell that sounds unbearable, for the family. And yet, i don't know why that sort of treatment would prevent the kind of solo / spontaneous attacks that seem more common that the more organised kind.



Fair enough. And yes, it was deeply traumatising for the kids (the members of the family who I knew best/cared most about).

I may not agree but I respect your point of view and accept your fears are quite reasonable. 

I guess I'm tending to the view that she'd be more of a risk for trying to recruit others (if not under a TPIM/control order) rather than what you're thinking of. I can't know that though can I.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Fair enough. And yes, it was deeply traumatising for the kids (the members of the family who I knew best/cared most about).
> 
> I may not agree but I respect your point of view and accept your fears are quite reasonable.
> 
> I guess I'm tending to the view that she'd be more of a risk for trying to recruit others (if not under a TPIM/control order) rather than what you're thinking of. I can't know that though can I.


I'm not actually afraid, personally, or not aware of feeling that. I mean I'd put terrorist knife attack in tescos way down on my list of worries. Just find it interesting, more in the abstract really.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> I'm not actually afraid, personally, or not aware of feeling that. I mean I'd put terrorist knife attack in tescos way down on my list of worries. Just find it interesting, more in the abstract really.


 OK fair enough! Sorry for labelling it a fear when it isn't.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Same time, i wouldn't want her as my next door neighbour, the chat would be awkward.


----------



## bmd (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> Same time, i wouldn't want her as my next door neighbour, the chat would be awkward.



Awks indeed. Soooo, you been anywhere nice?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> You don't think the current surveillance powers for those suspected/convicted of terrorist offences (control orders, etc.)  are enough?



I don't think they they'd prevent anyone who was determined to commit an act of terrorism from doing so.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think they they'd prevent anyone who was determined to commit an act of terrorism from doing so.



I think so too and that's why I think I'd feel safer with people like this young woman here, in the UK, being properly monitored, rather than elsewhere in the world acting more freely.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I used to look after the children of a man who was subject to a control order (pre tpim but similar). I was hired by his legal team to do so.
> 
> His house and landlines were bugged (state had proved this in legal hearing prior to me being hired).
> 
> ...


What had he done to be placed in this situation?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I think so too and that's why I think I'd feel safer with people like this young woman here, in the UK, being properly monitored, rather than elsewhere in the world acting more freely.


Sorry, typo - I meant to say "I DONT think they would...".


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> What had he done to be placed in this situation?



Alleged funding of terrorism training in Afghanistan.
He said he was funding ordinary schools for children.
I never bonded with him and had (indeed have) no opinion as regards his guilt or innocence.
I did bond a bit with his wife, and a lot with his children.
Subsequently mum took kids to her family in Lebanon. A year or two after they left the UK (without him) he was killed by US forces in Afghanistan. I did not stay in contact with any of the family after my brief (2 months) time with them.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

bmd said:


> Christ almighty, what a fucking awful situation to live within. Appreciate the insight, BillRiver



Doesn’t it just make your heart bleed? It’s almost as if there isn’t a way to avoid being subject to those conditions.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Doesn’t it just make your heart bleed? It’s almost as if there isn’t a way to avoid being subject to those conditions.



For his wife and children?

She gave birth, for the 6th time, during the winter I took care of the older five.

She told me "I love all of my children with all.of my heart, but I pray Allah please give me no more!" the day she came home after the birth. She really meant it.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> For his wife and children?
> 
> She gave birth, for the 6th time, during the winter I took care of the older five.
> 
> She told me "I love all of my children with all.of my heart, but I pray Allah please give me no more!" the day she came home after the birth. She really meant it.


It’s highly regrettable for his wife and children but he put them in that situation.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It’s highly regrettable for his wife and children but he put them in that situation.



Have I, or has anyone else here, suggested otherwise?


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Sorry, typo - I meant to say "I DONT think they would...".



Do you think she can or will be better monitored, indeed controlled, by the UK state while she is elsewhere?
Is that a good thing?
Is she really that much less dangerous to us who live here, while she is  elsewhere?

I don't know for sure, none of us can, but obviously I _feel_ it's safer for us all if she is here.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Do you think she can or will be better monitored, indeed controlled, by the UK state while she is elsewhere?
> Is that a good thing?
> Is she really that much less dangerous to us who live here, while she is  elsewhere?
> 
> I don't know for sure, none of us can, but obviously I _feel_ it's safer for us all if she is here.



I think she's less able to commit an atrocity in the UK whilst she's in a camp in Syria.  (Which isn't to say that ought to be the single determinant of whether or not she should be allowed back.)


----------



## Sasaferrato (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think they they'd prevent anyone who was determined to commit an act of terrorism from doing so.



No. How long does it take someone to leave the house and stab passers by? Answer, a lot less time than it would take for the police to arrive.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think she's less able to commit an atrocity in the UK whilst she's in a camp in Syria.  (Which isn't to say that ought to be the single determinant of whether or not she should be allowed back.)



Of course.

But arguably more able to _recruit_ and _organise_ others to do it for her, back in the UK?

Or to kill people elsewhere?

ETA I mean maybe not from the camp she is apparently in right now, but if/when she leaves there.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Of course.
> 
> But arguably more able to _recruit_ and _organise_ others to do it for her, back in the UK?
> 
> Or to kill people elsewhere?


it's astonishing to me that so few people here given the chance would really abide by the maxim 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'

given what osama bin laden did from the fastnesses of the hindu kush 20 years ago you'd have thought that by now western governments would have realised that small and far away are no longer synonyms for powerless.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Of course.
> 
> But arguably more able to _recruit_ and _organise_ others to do it for her, back in the UK?
> 
> ...



I don't know what she can do from there, and to what extent that can be monitored.  The government's position is that she poses less risk to UK citizens if she's there rather than here.   On the one hand, they're likely to be party to information we're not; on the other, they are likely to base decisions on political appeal, rather than purely on the security position.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> it's astonishing to me that so few people here given the chance would really abide by the maxim 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'
> 
> given what osama bin laden did from the fastnesses of the hindu kush 20 years ago you'd have thought that by now western governments would have realised that small and far away are no longer synonyms for powerless.



Agreed. Although not the primary/fundamental reason that I object to the removal of a British citizen's citizenship despite any impression I've given here on this thread!

I actually disagree to that on principle, no matter what they're accused or even convicted of.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't know what she can do from there, and to what extent that can be monitored.  The government's position is that she poses less risk to UK citizens of she's there rather than here.   On the one hand, they're likely to be party to information we're not; on the other, they are likely to base decisions on political appeal, rather than purely on the security position.


frankly we'd all be in less danger if the positions of shamima begum and the cabinet were reversed, if she were brought back here and boris johnson and his filthy cabal installed in a camp in syria.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> frankly we'd all be in less danger if the positions of shamima begum and the cabinet were reversed, if she were brought back here and boris johnson and his filthy cabal installed in a camp in syria.


That much we can agree on.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> frankly we'd all be in less danger if the positions of shamima begum and the cabinet were reversed, if she were brought back here and boris johnson and his filthy cabal installed in a camp in syria.



That would depend on who replaced them in government, no? I presume you aren't suggesting she be given that power.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> That would depend on who replaced them in government, no? I presume you aren't suggesting she be given that power.


can't see how she'd manage to kill anywhere near as many people as boris johnson, but no, i'm not suggesting she be installed in number ten


----------



## kebabking (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> it's astonishing to me that so few people here given the chance would really abide by the maxim 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer'
> 
> given what osama bin laden did from the fastnesses of the hindu kush 20 years ago you'd have thought that by now western governments would have realised that small and far away are no longer synonyms for powerless.



I think the maxim's validity depends on the principle that you can keep an eye on your enemies if they are close to you - however if there's one thing we've learned over the last 20 years, it's that i) some of these people are really bright, ii) sometimes we're not as bright/careful as we'd like to be, and iii) watching these people to the point of rendering them harmless is _incredibly _resource intensive and expensive, to the point where we simply cannot watch all of them all of the time.

On that basis, dangerous and a long way away is better than dangerous and next door.

There is a fundamental problem in having these characters in what is one of the least secure places on earth, obviously there is, and only a fool would deny it - but there's also a fundamental problem in having them here, under a less than perfect watch, where literally a 20 minute gap in surveillance or reaction could result in half-a-dozen dead in their local supermarket.

There's only one truly _secure _pathway, all the others are comprised by having potentially very serious negative consequences. You just get to choose which risks and costs you're prepared to live with...


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I think the maxim's validity depends on the principle that you can keep an eye on your enemies if they are close to you - however if there's one thing we've learned over the last 20 years, it's that i) some of these people are really bright, ii) sometimes we're not as bright/careful as we'd like to be, and iii) watching these people to the point of rendering them harmless is _incredibly _resource intensive and expensive, to the point where we simply cannot watch all of them all of the time.
> 
> On that basis, dangerous and a long way away is better than dangerous and next door.
> 
> ...


which makes it even stranger that some hundreds of your actual fighters have returned to the uk and we're really worried about one woman who no one even seriously suggests went to syria to top people


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> which makes it even stranger that some hundreds of your actual fighters have returned to the uk and we're really worried about one woman who no one even seriously suggests went to syria to top people



Nobody's arguing that those people are less dangerous than her; I suspect many are far more dangerous.  But the reason they haven't been stripped of citizenship is that it would be unlawful to do so (since they're not dual citizens).


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Nobody's arguing that those people are less dangerous than her; I suspect many are far more dangerous.  But the reason they haven't been stripped of citizenship is that it would be unlawful to do so (since they're not dual citizens).



She wasn't and isn't a dual citizen either.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> She wasn't and isn't a dual citizen either.


The courts decided she was (though she's not now).


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> The courts decided she was (though she's not now).



Bangladesh disagreed.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Bangladesh disagreed.


Some Bangladeshi politicians said she wasn't. But the English courts found that Bangladesi law says she is.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Nobody's arguing that those people are less dangerous than her; I suspect many are far more dangerous.  But the reason they haven't been stripped of citizenship is that it would be unlawful to do so (since they're not dual citizens).


yeh we've moved on from citizenship now so change the fucking record it's been played to shit


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> She wasn't and isn't a dual citizen either.


have you ever seen the athos show before?


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> She wasn't and isn't a dual citizen either.


Here we go again


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh we've moved on from citizenship now so change the fucking record it's been played to shit



It's the crucial difference between her and the group to which you compared her.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> have you ever seen the athos show before?


Since Diamond left he's our preeminent legal expert.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Since Diamond left he's our preeminent legal expert.


it's strange how we've proper actual practicing experts in so many fields but we've got to rely on someone who hasn't practiced law in years for legal stuff


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

My brother was born in the United States, to British parents. They all moved back here to the UK when he was 2 years old and he's lived here ever since.

He has dual nationality.

No matter what crime he might ever be accused of I don't believe he should ever be denied his British citizenship.

I don't believe anyone should, whether single or dual national.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's the crucial difference between her and the group to which you compared her.


i'd say it's what she's got between her legs which really differentiates her from the fighters who've come back.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> My brother was born in the United States, to British parents. They all moved back here to the UK when he was 2 years old and he's lived here ever since.
> 
> He has dual nationality.
> 
> ...



Whether he should and whether he could are different questions.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> it's strange how we've proper actual practicing experts in so many fields but we've got to rely on someone who hasn't practiced law in years for legal stuff


Does that matter? On this subject he's spot-on.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Does that matter? On this subject he's spot-on.


just an aside, spy


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd say it's what she's got between her legs which really differentiates her from the fighters who've come back.



I'd be inclined to agree with you if you could point to a case of a man in an identical position not being stripped of British citizenship.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Some Bangladeshi politicians said she wasn't. But the English courts found that Bangladesi law says she is.



At the risk of rehashing an earlier point, English courts are not empowered to interpret Bangladeshi law because of obviousness.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'd be inclined to agree with you if you could point to a case of a man in an identical position not being stripped of British citizenship.


It's not just the legal case (yawn) that's up for discussion surely? It's the public perception and the press's obsession with this woman that's the real topic of discussion.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> At the risk of rehashing an earlier point, English courts are not empowered to interpret Bangladeshi law because of obviousness.



For the purposes of a legal challenge to a decision of the UK Home Secretary bought in the English courts, they're the *only* forum empowered to decide that point!


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'd be inclined to agree with you if you could point to a case of a man in an identical position not being stripped of British citizenship.


there's women who are undoubted uk citizens in the camps who were trafficked and are told they've no chance of coming back to the uk



			https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/03052021


----------



## Jay Park (May 3, 2021)

kebabking said:


> I think the maxim's validity depends on the principle that you can keep an eye on your enemies if they are close to you - however if there's one thing we've learned over the last 20 years, it's that i) some of these people are really bright, ii) sometimes we're not as bright/careful as we'd like to be, and iii) watching these people to the point of rendering them harmless is _incredibly _resource intensive and expensive, to the point where we simply cannot watch all of them all of the time.
> 
> On that basis, dangerous and a long way away is better than dangerous and next door.
> 
> ...



christ on a bike that is far-fucking-out there.

'Having them here under a less than perfect watch'

Why don't we build camps like the Brits did in Kenya?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's not just the legal case (yawn) that's up for discussion surely? It's the public perception and the press's obsession with this woman that's the real topic of discussion.



Yes, both aspects are significant.


----------



## Jay Park (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> there's women who are undoubted uk citizens in the camps who were trafficked and are told they've no chance of being brought back to the uk
> View attachment 266227
> 
> 
> https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/03052021



sick


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> there's women who are undoubted uk citizens in the camps who were trafficked and are told they've no chance of coming back to the uk
> View attachment 266227
> 
> 
> https://www.rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/03052021



You're moving the goalposts. You were comparing her case with those of men who've returned.


----------



## Jay Park (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> For the purposes of a legal challenge to a decision of the UK Home Secretary bought in the English courts, they're the *only* forum empowered to decide that point!



and they're an emblem of morality, right?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Jay Park said:


> and they're an emblem of morality, right?


No.  Pointing out SpookyFrank's mistake as to the legal power of English courts to decide such questions is in no way an endorsement of their morality.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> You're moving the goalposts. You were comparing her case with those of men who've returned.


yes, i was and now i am pointing out there are other women who should not have any obstacles placed in the way of their return, british women, who are basically being dumped in the camps. i thought you might have something other than 'does not compute' to say about this but i see that the slightest deviation from something about citizenship on this thread and you're flummoxed.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Oh god. Please not the objective legal expert schtick again.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Jay Park said:


> and they're an emblem of morality, right?


courts of law not courts of justice


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> yes, i was and now i am pointing out there are other women who should not have any obstacles placed in the way of their return, british women, who are basically being dumped in the camps. i thought you might have something other than 'does not compute' to say about this but i see that the slightest deviation from something about citizenship on this thread and you're flummoxed.



I'm not flummoxed at all. I'd like them to be tried locally.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not flummoxed at all. I'd like them to be tried locally.


what, women who have been trafficked and raped? what do you want them tried for?

e2a: it's ok, i've worked it out: adultery


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Oh god. Please not the objective legal expert schtick again.


I don't know why you have such a problem with this. He's absolutely right.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> what, women who have been trafficked and raped? what do you want them tried for?



Tried for any crimes of which they're suspected.  If they've been coerced, they should be acquitted.  Any British citizen who isn't suspected or who is acquitted ought to be able to return to the UK.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I don't know why you have such a problem with this. He's absolutely right.


Because its all he got.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Tried for any crimes of which they're suspected.  If they've been coerced, they should be acquitted.  Any British citizen who isn't suspected or who is acquitted ought to be able to return to the UK.



But where there is no possibility of fair trial so no one can be acquitted, what should happen then do you reckon?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Tried for any crimes of which they're suspected.  If they've been coerced, they should be acquitted.  Any British citizen who isn't suspected or who is acquitted ought to be able to return to the UK.


but not i see those found guilty who have served their sentences. i wonder why not.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> But where there is no possibility of fair trial so no one can be acquitted, what should happen then do you reckon?


Then it's incumbent on the international community to facilitate such fair trials.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then it's incumbent on the intensively community to facilitate such fair trials.



Huh?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> but not i see those found guilty who have served their sentences. i wonder why not.


I overlooked that group, but you're right - they should be allowed to return, too.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Huh?


Typo. Corrected.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then it's incumbent on the international community to facilitate such fair trials.



In situations where that is not possible?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> In situations where that is not possible?


Then it's a case of competing priorities, including public safety and principles of natural justice.  I'm not sure where to draw the line; whether it's on a general basis, or case-by-case.  But, broadly speaking, I'd tend towards bringing even dangerous people back rather than having them rot in limbo indefinitely.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then it's incumbent on the intensively community to facilitate such fair trials.


nothing in any of your posts about timely trials. nothing in your posts about helping people find witnesses who could offer either evidence of innocence or mitigation who in the ebb and flow of war and pandemic may have ended up far afield. not to mention that it may be difficult to find counsel in those parts of the world at the best of times. in a similar situation british courts would struggle to offer any genuine form of justice but i suggest it's going to be a mountain to climb for someone without any secondary education, relatives or indeed money in a foreign country in which she's been assaulted and imprisoned to manage to represent herself effectively.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Then it's a case of competing priorities, including public safety and principles of natural justice.  I'm not sure where to draw the line; whether it's on a general basis, or case-by-case.  But, generally speaking, I'd tend towards bringing even dangerous people back rather than having them rot in limbo indefinitely.



Then we agree, more or less.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> nothing in any of your posts about timely trials. nothing in your posts about helping people find witnesses who could offer either evidence of innocence or mitigation who in the ebb and flow of war and pandemic may have ended up far afield. not to mention that it may be difficult to find counsel in those parts of the world at the best of times. in a similar situation british courts would struggle to offer any genuine form of justice but i suggest it's going to be a mountain to climb for someone without any secondary education, relatives or indeed money in a foreign country in which she's been assaulted and imprisoned to manage to represent herself effectively.



I think trials should be as timely as possible, and that British citizens should get legal aid and effective representation.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think trials should be as timely as possible, and that British citizens should get legal aid and effective representation.


is there legal aid available for trials abroad?


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i'd say it's what she's got between her legs which really differentiates her from the fighters who've come back.


what makes you say that?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> is there legal aid available for trials abroad?


If there's not currently, there's no reason why that can't be changed.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> what makes you say that?


because i think it's true


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> If there's not currently, there's no reason why that can't be changed.


there isn't any aid for iraq or syria Legal aid

but i expect that'll be on the government's list of things to change just below the covid inquiry


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> because i think it's true


why do you think that ?


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I don't know why you have such a problem with this. He's absolutely right.


Because all conversation about the right and wrong of the matter is corralled into a very narrow discussion of whether the state acted legally or not which. It's very boring.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> why do you think that ?


because of the way she has been demonised in a way that no one else with any possibility of returning has been. and then you look at the women who are undoubted british citizens as in the link i posted and they're being effectively left to rot. i think there's more than a hint of misogyny about the whole thing


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> because of the way she has been demonised in a way that no one else with any possibility of returning has been.


I don't think the press would be obsessed with a male Shamima in this way, and I don't think the male Shamima's thread would be this many pages on here either, but the idea that the government wouldn't have stripped male Shamima of his citizenship doesn't follow at all, imo.

eta i hate the ruling, i'm a person with the same conditional citizenship as her (just because my parents were born elsewhere) and i didn't know that and think its completely wrong. But i don't think its sexism.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> I don't think the press would be obsessed with a male Shamima in this way, and I don't think the male Shamima's thread would be this many pages on here either, but the idea that the government wouldn't have stripped male Shamima of his citizenship doesn't follow at all, imo.


i would be frankly astonished if there's not a man in the same position as regards nationality as her. 900 or so men went to fight for daesh and many of them must have had south asian heritage.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because all conversation about the right and wrong of the matter is corralled into a very narrow discussion of whether the state acted legally or not which. It's very boring.


It might be boring but it's important.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i would be frankly astonished if there's not a man in the same position as regards nationality as her. 900 or so men went to fight for daesh and many of them must have had south asian heritage.


yeah, i thought this had been done to others , like them. Has it not then?
eta oh it has, plenty. i think these are mostly men.








						Who has been stripped of UK citizenship before Shamima Begum?
					

If Savid Javid’s plans go ahead, 19-year-old will join around 120 others since 2016




					www.theguardian.com
				











						How is the government using its increased powers to strip British people of their citizenship? - Free Movement
					

Legal constraints on the Home Office's power to take away British citizenship have been loosened in recent years, and the power used more often.



					www.freemovement.org.uk


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> yeah, i thought this had been done to others , like them. Has it not then?


tbh no one knows except the home office and they aren't saying Number of people stripped of UK citizenship soars by 600% in a year


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Indeed.

Number of people stripped of UK citizenship soars by 600% in a year

ETA: I understand others were actual dual citizens though, rather than solely British citizens who_ in theory could have but didn't actually _have any other citizenship as per Begum.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> yeah, i thought this had been done to others , like them. Has it not then?
> eta oh it has, plenty. i think these are mostly men.
> 
> 
> ...


from the 2019 link BillRiver and i have posted you'll see they don't say whether or how many people have had their citizenship withdrawn because they went to join daesh


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It might be boring but it's important.


Not particularly. If I'm discussing whether the UK state is racist or not I'm not particularly bothered about whether it's followed its own laws or not.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not particularly. If I'm discussing whether the UK state is racist or not I'm not particularly bothered about whether it's followed its own laws or not.



I would be, but that definitely wouldn't be all I'd be interested in with regard to that issue. Far from it.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I would be, but that definitely wouldn't be all I'd be interested in with regard to that issue. Far from it.


It's relevant, but if you'd read the whole thread you'd be bored of the fake lawyer and his faux objectivity by now.


----------



## SpookyFrank (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh no one knows except the home office and they aren't saying Number of people stripped of UK citizenship soars by 600% in a year



This is probably fine.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> tbh no one knows except the home office and they aren't saying Number of people stripped of UK citizenship soars by 600% in a year


I see, but you suspect that none of these were Daes- joining men because the gov haven't disclosed so you reckon it's because she's female that this has happened to her? I remain unconvinced.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> I see, but you suspect that none of these were Daes- joining men because the gov haven't disclosed so you reckon it's because she's female that this has happened to her? I remain unconvinced.



I think the others weren't solely British citizens.

I think a number of factors (her age, her sex, the fact she was a British schoolgirl, her children...) led to her getting more media attention than them.

I think the media attention led to a "court of public opinion" scenario based on minimal facts which influenced the UK government.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> I see, but you suspect that none of these were Daes- joining men because the gov haven't disclosed so you reckon it's because she's female that this has happened to her? I remain unconvinced.


i am not surprised

she has been more harshly treated than anyone (bar john amery) who was involved with the british freikorps. i don't myself see what she has done is on a par with someone who took up arms for daesh: you do. i repeat, i am not surprised.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not particularly. If I'm discussing whether the UK state is racist or not I'm not particularly bothered about whether it's followed its own laws or not.


It's not like Athos is constantly raising the issues though. Other people are. If people keep making the same mistakes, as BillRiver has done here, he's correct to point them out.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It's not like Athos is constantly raising the issues though. Other people are. If people keep making the same mistakes, as BillRiver has done here, he's correct to point them out.



What mistake did I make?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> It's not like Athos is constantly raising the issues though. Other people are. If people keep making the same mistakes, as BillRiver has done here, he's correct to point them out.


he's constantly doing something


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> What mistake did I make?



This is wrong:



> I understand others were actual dual citizens though, rather than solely British citizens who_ in theory could have but didn't actually _have any other citizenship as per Begum.



Athos has told you why.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> Athos has told you why.



Sigh.

Nope.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Sigh.
> 
> Nope.


yeh athos in speculation shocker again


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh athos in speculation shocker again


There's no speculation about it. He's completely and demonstrably correct.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos appears to be stuck in the mentality of an undergrad law student, still imagining the law is black & white, with no grey areas at all...


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> there isn't any aid for iraq or syria Legal aid
> 
> but i expect that'll be on the government's list of things to change just below the covid inquiry



I agree.  But you asked me what I think should happen, not what will.


----------



## kebabking (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> she has been more harshly treated than anyone (bar john amery) who was involved with the british freikorps...



A good number of them got a Paveway through the windscreen. You can argue whether death is a more severe treatment than Begum has received, but let's not pretend that the others got 2 days cessation of chocolate ration.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i am not surprised
> 
> she has been more harshly treated than anyone (bar john amery) who was involved with the british freikorps. i don't myself see what she has done is on a par with someone who took up arms for daesh: you do. i repeat, i am not surprised.


i don't know what it is you're trying to say but if its that i'm probably a big misogynist okay.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is wrong:
> 
> 
> 
> Athos has told you why.


No, he's explained the legal reasoning behind the decision. He's also explained the difference between de jure and de facto citizenship. De facto meeting any reasonable person's definition of 'actually having a usable dual nationality' which Shamina Begum doesn't. The fact that they've rules on the basis of de jure citizenship is neither here nor there. It just makes you happy because it's what you want.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Number of people stripped of UK citizenship soars by 600% in a year
> 
> ETA: I understand others were actual dual citizens though, rather than solely British citizens who_ in theory could have but didn't actually _have any other citizenship as per Begum.



The court found that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship (automatically, by virtue of her parentage, as per Bangladeshi law).


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> The court found that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship (automatically, by virtue of her parentage, as per Bangladeshi law).



And yet Bangladesh disagreed.

As I pointed out already and am happy to keep repeating.

Things really aren't as black & white as you seem to believe/wish they were.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Because all conversation about the right and wrong of the matter is corralled into a very narrow discussion of whether the state acted legally or not which. It's very boring.



No it's not. And it's a bit silly for you to criticise me for focusing on the law when I'm responding to correct others' factual mistakes about the legal position.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> The court found that she did have Bangladeshi citizenship (automatically, by virtue of her parentage, as per Bangladeshi law).


Really? Why haven't you mentioned this before? 

It's as bad as philosophical and his border in the Irish sea.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> i don't know what it is you're trying to say but if its that i'm probably a big misogynist okay.


you equated what she's said to have done with people who took up arms for daesh. i don't but i am not surprised you do.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> De facto meeting any reasonable person's definition of 'actually having a usable dual nationality' which Shamina Begin doesn't.


She doesn't now. She did.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i would be frankly astonished if there's not a man in the same position as regards nationality as her. 900 or so men went to fight for daesh and many of them must have had south asian heritage.


Many men have been stripped of dual citizenship.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> No it's not.



It's exactly what you've just done.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Not particularly. If I'm discussing whether the UK state is racist or not I'm not particularly bothered about whether it's followed its own laws or not.



Which I'm sure nobody in their right mind would dispute!


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Why Depriving Shamima Begum of her UK Citizenship Breaches International Law

By Francesca Gallelli who "is an MPhil/PhD student and hourly-paid lecturer at Middlesex University, London and a visiting researcher at the Centre de Droit Européen, Brussels. Her doctoral project focuses on freedom of religion or belief and the limits of the right to conscience-based legal exceptions under international human rights law".


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> And yet Bangladesh disagreed.
> 
> As I pointed out already and am happy to keep repeating.
> 
> Things really aren't as black & white as you seem to believe/wish they were.



Bangladeshi *politicians* disagreed!  But Bangladeshi law is pretty clear on this point, as has been set out at great length earlier on the thread.  Notably, it was the only one of the SIAC's decisions she didn't bother to challenge.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Why Depriving Shamima Begum of her UK Citizenship Breaches International Law
> 
> By Francesca Gallelli who "is an MPhil/PhD student and hourly-paid lecturer at Middlesex University, London and a visiting researcher at the Centre de Droit Européen, Brussels. Her doctoral project focuses on freedom of religion or belief and the limits of the right to conscience-based legal exceptions under international human rights law".


It's groundhog day


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Shamima Begum, citizenship revocation and the question of due process - ICCT

"Begum had her UK citizenship – the only one she holds – revoked"

By Julie Coleman (a Senior Research Fellow and Programme Lead (P/CVE) at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT). ) and Dr. Joana Cook (a Senior Project Manager at ICCT, and Editor-in-Chief of the ICCT journal. She is also an Assistant Professor of Terrorism and Political Violence in the Faculty of Governance and Global Affairs, Leiden University.).


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Many men have been stripped of dual citizenship.


so it says in the link i posted but it doesn't say for what so unless you can actually demonstrate something the home office won't you'll be speculating and we all know you don't do that. and anyway even if many men had had citizenship stripped that doesn't mean every last one of the eligible people has had it stripped from them - so once again (given you have above been rather expansive in your claims) put up your evidence or pipe down on the matter.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Shamima Begum, citizenship revocation and the question of due process - ICCT


You're making the mistake of quoting actual legal academics rather than some bloke who might have been some kind of lawyer ten years ago on the internet.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Why Depriving Shamima Begum of her UK Citizenship Breaches International Law
> 
> By Francesca Gallelli who "is an MPhil/PhD student and hourly-paid lecturer at Middlesex University, London and a visiting researcher at the Centre de Droit Européen, Brussels. Her doctoral project focuses on freedom of religion or belief and the limits of the right to conscience-based legal exceptions under international human rights law".



The reasons this analysis is incorrect are set out in the relevant judgements (many of which I've linked to earlier in the thread).

ETA: It's actually laughably poor.  The legal analysis of whether not she has Bangladeshi citizenship consists of a link to a BBC report in which she says she doesn't!


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Shamima Begum, citizenship revocation and the question of due process - ICCT
> 
> "Begum had her UK citizenship – the only one she holds – revoked"
> 
> By Julie Coleman (a Senior Research Fellow and Programme Lead (P/CVE) at the International Centre for Counter-Terrorism – The Hague (ICCT). ) and


Ditto.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're making the mistake of quoting actual legal academics rather than some bloke who might have been some kind of lawyer ten years ago on the internet.


There are just as many equally qualified legal opinions to the contrary, as posted on this thread. Bangladeshi law is straightforward on the subject. The fact that a couple of their goons say differently doesn't change the law.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> The reasons this analysis is incorrect is set out in the relevant judgements (many of which I've linked to earlier in the thread).



It's not incorrect. It does differ from some judgements.

Life (and law) is more complex than you are willing to admit here (or able to grasp? I don't know yet).


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> You're making the mistake of quoting actual legal academics rather than some bloke who might have been some kind of lawyer ten years ago on the internet.



Lol.  You don't have to take my word for it, read the courts' judgements and set out where they've erred in law on the issue of her Bangladeshi citizenship.  I'm afraid it's just wishful thinking on your part.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> so it says in the link i posted but it doesn't say for what so unless you can actually demonstrate something the home office won't you'll be speculating and we all know you don't do that. and anyway even if many men had had citizenship stripped that doesn't mean every last one of the eligible people has had it stripped from them - so once again (given you have above been rather expansive in your claims) put up your evidence or pipe down on the matter.



It was you who made the claim of different treatment; I'm not claiming the opposite - in saying I'm not convinced by your claim. So how about you provide some evidence for your claim?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

.


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> you equated what she's said to have done with people who took up arms for daesh. i don't but i am not surprised you do.


I see. But no, i don’t know what she’s done and haven’t attempted to draw any equivalence between her and people who took up arms.
was simply saying you’re wrong when you suggested that her deprivation of citizenship is because sexism, that’s all.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol.  You don't have to take my word for it, read the courts' judgements and set out where they've erred in law on the issue of her Bangladeshi citizenship.  I'm afraid it's just wishful thinking on your part.


I have enough work of my own to be doing thanks. And I'm pretty sure law is open to interpretation, you admitted as much yourself with the de jure de facto stuff. 

And given that it's _international_ law they've potentially broken by making her stateless (which she is) they're not even the presiding authority on the matter (unlikely though it is to make it to a higher court).


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> It's not incorrect. It does differ from some judgements.
> 
> Life (and law) is more complex than you are willing to admit here (or able to grasp? I don't know yet).



I practiced as a solicitor for some years (taking cases to what was then the House of Lords), so I think I have a reasonable idea about the complexity of the law.

Of course you'll get people that dispute almost any legal point (for a variety of reasons).  But the arguments made by these individuals aren't persuasive when compared to the detailed analysis in the judgements.

Also, you'll note that the finding that she wasn't made stateless was the only part of the SIAC judgement she didn't bother to challenge.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> so you don't understand what you claimed to understand just a few minutes ago.



I understand it.  Do you have any evidence for your claim?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> I have enough work of my own to be doing thanks. And I'm pretty sure law is open to interpretation, you admitted as much yourself with the de jure de facto stuff.
> 
> And given that it's _international_ law they've potentially broken by making her stateless (which she is) they're not even the presiding authority on the matter (unlikely though it is to make it to a higher court).



This post demonstrates your lack of understanding of how the law works.

You've just decided they've broken the law, because that's what you want. But you can't explain how or why in anything but the most vague terms.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I understand it.  Do you have any echoed for your claim?


i have as many echoes as you might desire.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> i have as many echoes as you might desire.


Typo. Corrected.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> And given that it's _international_ law they've potentially broken by making her stateless (which she is) they're not even the presiding authority on the matter (unlikely though it is to make it to a higher court).



This is just wrong.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> This is just wrong.


So if I get made stateless and have unlimited funds for representation who do I take my case to? The not making people stateless thing is the result of a 1961 treaty, who rules on whether that's been broken or not?


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

bimble said:


> I see. But no, i don’t know what she’s done and haven’t attempted to draw any equivalence between her and people who took up arms.
> was simply saying you’re wrong when you suggested that her deprivation of citizenship is because sexism, that’s all.


no, i said the reason she is being treated as she is is because sexism. and the way she is being treated isn't simply reducible to the deprivation of citizenship, it includes the way she has been described and the way that despite not having taken up arms (unless you have some evidence to the contrary) she has beenbel demonised to the extent that at least one poster on this thread has expressed fear of her. the way other, indubitably british, women trafficked and raped are being treated in being basically dumped in camps, to my mind it's the same thing.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Typo. Corrected.


yeh i thought you made a claim i see you didn't so i went back and deleted my post.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Nobody's arguing that those people are less dangerous than her; I suspect many are far more dangerous.  But the reason they haven't been stripped of citizenship is that it would be unlawful to do so (since they're not dual citizens).


if you've any evidence for this claim it'd be nice to see you submit it.

there are of course numerous examples of the government being found to have acted unlawfully so i'd be interested in any evidence you can offer that somehow when it comes to the deprivation of citizenship they won't


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> I practiced as a solicitor for some years (taking cases to what was then the House of Lords), so I think I have a reasonable idea about the complexity of the law.
> 
> Of course you'll get people that dispute almost any legal point (for a variety of reasons).  But the arguments made by these individuals aren't persuasive.



If only it was safe for her to return to the UK and appeal the decision to revoke her citizenship. With proper advice and representation I'd fancy her chances, myself.

Obviously can't happen for the foreseeable though.


----------



## Spymaster (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> So if I get made stateless and have unlimited funds for representation who do I take my case to? The not making people stateless thing is the result of a 1961 treaty, who rules on whether that's been broken or not?


She was not made stateless by the UK government. That's a matter of law which has been ruled on. Everyone who's read this thread knows that. You're just repeating the same old nonsense over and over. Doing that doesn't make it correct!


----------



## bimble (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> no, i said the reason she is being treated as she is is because sexism. and the way she is being treated isn't simply reducible to the deprivation of citizenship, it includes the way she has been described and the way that despite not having taken up arms (unless you have some evidence to the contrary) she has beenbel demonised to the extent that at least one poster on this thread has expressed fear of her. the way other, indubitably british, women trafficked and raped are being treated in being basically dumped in camps, to my mind it's the same thing.


Oh, well then you might have expressed yrself better.




Pickman's model said:


> i'd say it's what she's got between her legs which really differentiates her from the fighters who've come back.


----------



## maomao (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> She was not made stateless by the UK government. That's a matter of law which has been ruled on. Everyone who's read this thread knows that. You're just repeating the same old nonsense over and over. Doing that doesn't make it correct!


Whatever. I'm stateless. Who do I complain to?


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> if you've any evidence for this claim it'd be nice to see you submit it



Earlier in the thread, I quoted decisions of the court in other cases in which the Home Secretary tried to strip men suspected of links to terrorism of their British citizenship but was prevented from doing so because they weren't dual citizens, because their Bangladeshi citizenship had automatically been revoked when they turned 21.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> She was not made stateless by the UK government. That's a matter of law which has been ruled on. Everyone who's read this thread knows that. You're just repeating the same old nonsense over and over. Doing that doesn't make it correct!



She's unable to exercise her right to appeal that decision though, in a UK Court. She'd have to get into the UK to be able to do that.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Whatever. I'm stateless. Who do I complain to?


Get to turkey and seek legal aid. And if you can find them maybe you can hire the a team


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> If only it was safe for her to return to the UK and appeal the decision to revoke her citizenship. With proper advice and representation I'd fancy her chances, myself.
> 
> Obviously can't happen for the foreseeable though.



She'd have a chance of success, of course, but it'd be slim.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> She'd have a chance of success, if course, but it'd be slim.



Still a chance though.

Showing how non black and white the law is in relation to her situation. 

And that's the key wrong here for me.

That we'll probably never find out now.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Earlier in the thread, I quoted decisions of the court in other cases in which the Home Secretary tried to strip men suspected of links to terrorism of their British citizenship but was prevented from doing so because they weren't dual citizens, because their Bangladeshi citizenship has automatically been revoked when they formed 21.


so they have tried acting unlawfully and been prevented from so doing in at least some cases. This doesn't bode well and contradicts your they won't do this because unlawful


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> so they have tried acting unlawfully and been prevented from so doing in at least some cases. This doesn't bode well and contradicts your they won't do this because unlawful



I didn't claim that they wouldn't try.


----------



## kebabking (May 3, 2021)

maomao said:


> Whatever. I'm stateless. Who do I complain to?



Anyone you like. They just don't have to listen to you...


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Still a chance though.
> 
> Showing how non black and white the law is in relation to her situation.
> 
> ...


I suspect she'll soon decide that her appeal can go ahead without her being there, and the issue will get settled.

After all, the whole thing would be argued by lawyers; she'd play no significant role.  I suspect the idea that she needed to come back for an effective hearing was just a tactic to get her out.

And, whilst it remains possible that she'll win the wider appeal, I'd be very surprised if that's on the Bangladeshi citizenship point, which actually does seem pretty black-and-white.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

I wouldn't want to be her lawyer in that scenario, "representing" without actual access to my client. No way of advising, consulting, etc.


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> I wouldn't want to be her lawyer in that scenario, "representing" without actual access to my client. No way of advising, consulting, etc.



They've managed to represent her in all the proceedings to date.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> They've managed to represent her in all the proceedings to date.



Yes and they've repeatedly said how bloody hard, bordering on impossible, that's been.


----------



## eatmorecheese (May 3, 2021)

Punxsutawney Phil controls this thread


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

Her family's lawyer, who has never met her:

Shamima Begum’s lawyer: “The court ruling shows there are grades of citizenship”


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Yes and they've repeatedly said how bloody hard, bordering on impossible, that's been.



Of course they'd say that. But, yeah, I'm not denying it's not ideal.   Though I suspect she'll soon decide to press on with the appeal.


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

From the New Statesman piece :

"He [the family's lawyer] said that once every three months or so Begum is able to speak with her family on the phone for around a minute.

In February 2019, Akunjee travelled to talk to her about the appeal having received permission to see Begum from an SDF commander. But the guards at al-Roj camp “got a bit nervous and basically detained us thinking we were some sort of weird force or something, and they went through our phones. We were detained for about half an hour, and they refused to let us in”. ".


----------



## BillRiver (May 3, 2021)

And also "What's strange is that the Supreme Court recognises that this is inherently unfair,” Shamima Begum’s family lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, told me when we spoke recently. He was referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling that Begum, who joined Islamic State as a teenager in 2015, cannot return to the UK to challenge the government’s decision to remove her British citizenship.

The judgment states that Begum’s appeal should be delayed until she can play an “effective part” in the proceedings. It goes on: “That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind.” With no clear date or criteria for when the appeal can restart, Akunjee said he was “quite surprised” and “somewhat concerned that this judgement… appears to rub out the notion of ‘justice delayed is justice denied'.”


----------



## Athos (May 3, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> And also "What's strange is that the Supreme Court recognises that this is inherently unfair,” Shamima Begum’s family lawyer, Tasnime Akunjee, told me when we spoke recently. He was referring to the recent Supreme Court ruling that Begum, who joined Islamic State as a teenager in 2015, cannot return to the UK to challenge the government’s decision to remove her British citizenship.
> 
> The judgment states that Begum’s appeal should be delayed until she can play an “effective part” in the proceedings. It goes on: “That is not a perfect solution, as it is not known how long it may be before that is possible. But there is no perfect solution to a dilemma of the present kind.” With no clear date or criteria for when the appeal can restart, Akunjee said he was “quite surprised” and “somewhat concerned that this judgement… appears to rub out the notion of ‘justice delayed is justice denied'.”



I've not looked into it, but, because the decision to effectively stay proceedings whilst she's absent is to protect her interests, she could probably waive that, and ask that the appeal continues in her absence (perhaps by appointing something analogous to a Litigation Friend).  (Though I reckon there's a good chance she'll try to take the LTE decision to the ECtHR first, albeit I don't fancy her chances.)

To me, continuing without her there looks like her least bad option; at least she'd get a decision, rather than just being left to rot.  And, being pragmatic, once its up and running, it's in the hands of the lawyers; there's not much she could usefully add - it'll be technical legal arguments.

And, from the government's point of view, it doesn't involve any risk to the public of allowing her back to pursue the case, which, in practice, would be the same as her winning the case i.e. she'd be back for ever.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> He's also explained the difference between de jure and de facto citizenship. De facto meeting any reasonable person's definition of 'actually having a usable dual nationality' which Shamina Begum doesn't.



She's clearly not _de jure_ stateless.

And it's by no means obvious that she's _de facto_ stateless.  She might be able to successfully assert her Bangladeshi citizenship in the Bangladeshi courts; if she did, it would be very hard for Bangladeshi politicians to prevent her from using that nationality.

But, to avoid speculation either way, and for the sake of argument, let's assume you're right - that she is _de facto_ stateless.  The question then becomes whether or not it was the Home Secretary's deprivation decision that made her so.

For all its faults, that's not tenable; if anything made her _de facto_ stateless it's the *subsequent* actions of *Bangladeshi* *politicians (*apparently in *breach of Bangladeshi law*).


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> She's clearly not _de jure_ stateless.
> 
> And it's by no means obvious that she's _de facto_ stateless.  She might be able to successfully assert her Bangladeshi citizenship in the Bangladeshi courts; if she did, it would be very hard for Bangladeshi politicians to prevent her from using that nationality.
> 
> ...


It's like you live in a parallel universe where only legal judgements and technicalities matter. She's hardly likely to go to Bangladesh given they've threatened her life leaving her _effectively and actually_ stateless. She doesn't have a valid passport and is unable to get one. If she was in the Olympics she'd be at the back of the parade. The legal technicalities of which country's fault this is are irrelevant, she is stateless as a result of the case in the UK courts. If the home secretary hadn't taken it to court the Bangladeshis wouldn't have been asked their opinion on the matter.


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Bangladesh is rated 115 out of 128 countries on the world bank's rule of law index. It's a reasonable assumption that they don't feel obliged to follow their own laws. The Bangladeshi law may be 'enough' for a UK court of law but in reality she has no chance of gaining citizenship there.


----------



## Spymaster (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's like you live in a parallel universe where only legal judgements and technicalities matter. She's hardly likely to go to Bangladesh given they've threatened her life leaving her _effectively and actually_ stateless. She doesn't have a valid passport and is unable to get one. If she was in the Olympics she'd be at the back of the parade. The legal technicalities of which country's fault this is are irrelevant, she is stateless as a result of the case in the UK courts. If the home secretary hadn't taken it to court the Bangladeshis wouldn't have been asked their opinion on the matter.


If she is stateless, she is stateless as a result of Bangladesh ignoring their own laws and making her so.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> It's like you live in a parallel universe where only legal judgements and technicalities matter. She's hardly likely to go to Bangladesh given they've threatened her life leaving her _effectively and actually_ stateless. She doesn't have a valid passport and is unable to get one. If she was in the Olympics she'd be at the back of the parade. The legal technicalities of which country's fault this is are irrelevant, she is stateless as a result of the case in the UK courts. If the home secretary hadn't taken it to court the Bangladeshis wouldn't have been asked their opinion on the matter.



No, the English courts didn't deprive her of British citizenship (and it was her, not the HS, who took it to the courts).

IF (and it's a big 'if') she is _de facto _stateless (she's clearly not _de jure_), that's a result of the unlawful actions of some Bangladeshi politicians.

The extent to which someone can be held morally responsible for someone else's unforeseen and unlawful actions isn't some legal technicality.

Also, you're misunderstanding/conflating the issues of citizenship and passport, which, for all your claims of only dealing in morality, are (at least in part) necessarily legal issues.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Bangladesh is rated 115 out of 128 countries on the world bank's rule of law index. It's a reasonable assumption that they don't feel obliged to follow their own laws. The Bangladeshi law may be 'enough' for a UK court of law but in reality she has no chance of gaining citizenship there.



Yes, it's quite possible that Bangladesh's failure to follow its own laws will cause one of its citizens to be _de facto_ stateless.


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, the English courts didn't deprive her of British citizenship


Huh?


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Dp


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Huh?



The Courts didn't; the HS did.


----------



## Spymaster (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Huh?


It was the government, not the courts


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> The Courts didn't; the HS did.


Ah okay. And the courts supported that decision by saying she was entitled to citizenship in a country she'd never visited, known for not following their own laws and who have publicly said they not only won't give her citizenship but that they will execute all returning IS recruits leaving her effectively stateless. And your response to any discussion of this is to direct people to the judgement.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> Ah okay. And the courts supported that decision by saying she was entitled to citizenship in a country she'd never visited, known for not following their own laws and who have publicly said they not only won't give her citizenship but that they will execute all returning IS recruits leaving her effectively stateless. And your response to any discussion of this is to direct people to the judgement.



No, my response to specific incorrect claims about the legal position is to correct them.

I'm happy to discuss the moral position, about which I've been quite clear: I object to this law, and I don't agree with the outcome in this instance.

You want it both ways; happy to speak about the law, but only to the extent that you can make vague, unsupported claims - essentially wishful thinking that the law supports your moral position - about the HS acting unlawfully, then objecting to anyone pointing out where you're wrong!


----------



## strung out (May 4, 2021)

Britain bans extradition of its own citizens when they could be at risk of the death penalty in the requesting country, but it's quite happy to remove a brown woman's citizenship and tell her she's welcome to go and face the death penalty in Bangladesh or Syria if she wants. Wonder why that is.


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, my response to specific incorrect claims about the legal position is to correct them.
> 
> I'm happy to discuss the moral position, about which I've been quite clear: I object to this law, and I don't agree with the outcome in this instance.


And your instinct as a lawyer is to completely accept the judgement rather than look for an argument against it? Remind me not to hire you if I need a brief. I remain unconvinced that this is the only possible interpretation of the law and am still of the opinion that given the history of the rule of law in Bangladesh and the public statements of the Bangladeshi government that her statelessness is in every way the fault of the UK government.


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm happy to discuss the moral position, about which I've been quite clear: I object to this law,


You say this but yesterday I made statements that did not refer to legal process and you replied with reference to the decision of the courts.


----------



## Spymaster (May 4, 2021)

strung out said:


> Wonder why that is.


I think her travelling 2000 miles to join the most murderous group in the world might have had something to do with it.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> And your instinct as a lawyer is to completely accept the judgement rather than look for an argument against it? Remind me not to hire you if I need a brief. I remain unconvinced that this is the only possible interpretation of the law and am still of the opinion that given the history of the rule of law in Bangladesh and the public statements of the Bangladeshi government that her statelessness is in every way the fault of the UK government.



No, I've looked at it very carefully. But I just can't see where the SIAC erred in law on the Bangladeshi citizenship point. But, if you can, please explain in detail, by reference to the full judgement.  Tell us how the court interpreted the law wrong, rather than these vague, unsupported claims.

And I don't doubt that you're sincere when you blame the UK government, notwithstanding that you're completely unable to articulate how they could reasonably be considered responsible - legally or morally - for the subsequent unlawul actions of foreign politicians.


----------



## strung out (May 4, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I think her travelling 2000 miles to join the most murderous group in the world might have had something to do with it.


We don't extradite people to face the death penalty regardless of their crimes, yet will happily tell a young British woman who was trafficked as a 15 year old that she'll have to face execution in a country she's never been to (if she can ever escape the country she was trafficked to).


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> You say this but yesterday I made statements that did not refer to legal process and you replied with reference to the decision of the courts.



Did I? Where?

in any event, you flit from one to the other, as it suits you.  And the distinction isn't always as clear as you make out, anyway.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

strung out said:


> We don't extradite people to face the death penalty regardless of their crimes, yet will happily tell a young British woman who was trafficked as a 15 year old that she'll have to face execution in a country she's never been to (if she can ever escape the country she was trafficked to).



The UK hasn't told this young woman (who, as things stand, is no longer British, and may or may not have been trafficked) she'll have to face execution; its position is that she can stay in the camp.  Problematic in itself, but not what you claim.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

strung out said:


> Britain bans extradition of its own citizens when they could be at risk of the death penalty in the requesting country, but it's quite happy to remove a brown woman's citizenship and tell her she's welcome to go and face the death penalty in Bangladesh or Syria if she wants. Wonder why that is.



Overlooking the mischaracterisation of what's actually happened, the (then) HS's conduct could be explained by concerns about public safety, political populism, racism, sexism, or a mixture of two or more.


----------



## maomao (May 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, I've looked at it very carefully. But I just can't see where the SIAC erred in law on the Bangladeshi citizenship point. But, if you can, please explain in detail, by reference to the full judgement.  Tell us how the court interpreted the law wrong, rather than these vague, unsupported claims.


I'm happy with discussing opinions on right and wrong thank you. That has been my point all along.

Anyway, I've just taken a 'mental health' break from work and study and I'll be fucked if I'm making things worse by going in circles with you in full Mr Logic mode so I shall bow out for now.


----------



## Athos (May 4, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'm happy with discussing opinions on right and wrong thank you. That has been my point all along.
> 
> Anyway, I've just taken a 'mental health' break from work and study and I'll be fucked if I'm making things worse by going in circles with you in full Mr Logic mode so I shall bow out for now.



I'm happy to discuss those too, but will also continue to discuss the legal issues, particularly when others raise them.  Which, like it or not, is what you've been doing, at least in part e.g. by suggesting the court wrongly interpreted the law on the issue of Bangladeshi citizenship.

I hope your mental health break is a success, and I don't blame you for prioritising that over this discussion!


----------



## Spymaster (May 4, 2021)

strung out said:


> We don't extradite people to face the death penalty regardless of their crimes, yet will happily tell a young British woman who was trafficked as a 15 year old that she'll have to face execution in a country she's never been to (if she can ever escape the country she was trafficked to).


They’re telling her nothing of the sort. She can stay where she is. Iraq have offered to try these people in their courts. That’s what should happen.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

Note to potential terrorists: If either of your parents were born in any of the red countries, you may have dual citizenship that you're unaware of. However, experience has shown that this doesn't matter if you avoid associating with genocidal rapist child-murderers.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 270711


How come some parts of France differ from other parts of France?


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 270711
> 
> Note to potential terrorists: If either of your parents were born in any of the red countries, you may have dual citizenship that you're unaware of. However, experience has shown that this doesn't matter if you avoid associating with genocidal rapist child-murderers.


Far from that simple. My kids would not get Chinese citizenship automatically despite having a Chinese national (PRC passport holder, not a British citizen) as a parent.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> Far from that simple. My kids would not get Chinese citizenship automatically despite having a Chinese national (PRC passport holder, not a British citizen) as a parent.


That’s why “may” is key in the sentence. The map is a good starting point though. Anyone contemplating joining overseas rape cults can now check the map and research their citizenship status if necessary.


----------



## smmudge (May 29, 2021)

It's a great starting point for trying to make an argument that the map doesn't say anything about.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> That’s why “may” is key in the sentence. The map is a good starting point though. Anyone contemplating joining overseas rape cults can now check the map and their citizenship status.


Quick shufty suggests India's not that simple either so that's 80%+ of the population of the red areas discounted. It's a lot more to do with whether the citizenship has to be applied for or is somehow automatically conferred than whether it's by blood or land.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> Quick shufty suggests India's not that simple either so that's 80%+ of the population of the red areas discounted. It's a lot more to do with whether the citizenship has to be applied for or is somehow automatically conferred than whether it's by blood or land.


See? It’s working already. If potential terrorist sympathisers do what you’ve just done they may not end up being made stateless by countries like Bangladesh, acting against their own laws.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> View attachment 270711
> 
> Note to potential terrorists: If either of your parents were born in any of the red countries, you may have dual citizenship that you're unaware of. However, experience has shown that this doesn't matter if you avoid associating with genocidal rapist child-murderers.


We are all potential terrorists.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

smmudge said:


> It's a great starting point for trying to make an argument that the map doesn't say anything about.


Well no. Not if you’re an idiot.


----------



## smmudge (May 29, 2021)

Things the map shows:
1. Whether you're automatically offered citizenship in a country you're born in

Things the map doesn't show:
1. Whether you're offered citizenship in a country your parents are born in
2. Whether you're offered citizenship in a country you're not born in

What's your point again


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> See? It’s working already. If potential terrorist sympathisers do what you’ve just done they may not end up being made stateless by countries like Bangladesh, acting against their own laws.


I'd be pretty upset if my kids joined ISIS but I can imagine them doing things that the British state, particularly this government ten-fifteen years down the line, might want to define as terrorism that I'd be perfectly happy with. Wasn't Patel trying to get ER defined as terrorists or something.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Well no. Not if you’re an idiot.


It's very strange that according to your map people born in Guadeloupe or French Guiana have to negotiate different citizenship laws from those born in nice or angers


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

smmudge said:


> Things the map shows:
> 1. Whether you're automatically offered citizenship in a country you're born in
> 
> Things the map doesn't show:
> ...



As I thought. Idiot.

It’s not about having citizenship offered, it’s about having it bestowed or conferred.

ALL of the countries that bestow such citizenships will be red on the map (assuming the people who made it know what they’re doing). However, not all of the countries in red WILL bestow such citizenships. There's a Venn diagram going on here isn't there? Guess what colour the middle bit's going to be.

So if one or both of your parents come from a red country, do your research before joining ISIS. Like Maomao just did.


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> It's very strange that according to your map people born in Guadeloupe or French Guiana have to negotiate different citizenship laws from those born in nice or angers


Not really. Countries sometimes treat nationals of overseas territories differently to home nationals for citizenship purposes. No big story there. I’m sure we could find plenty of other examples of that. Falkland Islanders/UK until relatively recently springs to mind .


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Not really. Countries sometimes treat nationals of overseas territories differently to home nationals for citizenship purposes. No big story there. I’m sure we could find plenty of other examples of that. Falkland Islanders/UK until relatively recently springs to mind .


France's overseas territories are part of France and represented in their parliament. They are not held at arm's length like the Falklands. French Guiana and Guadalupe are part of the eu


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> I'd be pretty upset if my kids joined ISIS but I can imagine them doing things that the British state, particularly this government ten-fifteen years down the line, might want to define as terrorism


Shouldn’t be a problem (at least as far as burnt made stateless is concerned) if they’re not dual citizens.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 29, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> France's overseas territories are part of France and represented in their parliament. They are not held at arm's length like the Falklands. French Guiana and Guadalupe are part of the eu











						French Guiana - Out of this world
					

Alain de Botton finds a corner of South America that is forever France, and where tropical jungle tangles with space exploration




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> France's overseas territories are part of France and represented in their parliament. They are not held at arm's length like the Falklands. French Guiana and Guadalupe are part of the eu


Sounds like something you’d need to take up with France (or the map makers).

Interesting article though.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Shouldn’t be a problem (at least as far as burnt made stateless is concerned) if they’re not dual citizens.


They might push the definition a little further. They'd almost certainly be entitled if they were made stateless first (though China maybe not so keen if they'd been blowing stuff up). Right wing home secretaries have been successful in making this possible, who knows how far they'll take it if nobody complains now?


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> They might push the definition a little further. They'd almost certainly be entitled if they were made stateless first (though China maybe not so keen if they'd been blowing stuff up). Right wing home secretaries have been successful in making this possible, who knows how far they'll take it if nobody complains now?


We should most certainly complain very loudly indeed when there’s an example of genuine overreach by an HS. This just isn’t it.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> We should most certainly complain very loudly indeed when there’s an example of genuine overreach by an HS. This just isn’t it.


IYO


----------



## Athos (May 29, 2021)

At the very least, if such powers are to continue* then a single politician shouldn't be the decision-maker - that just invites decisions based on populism rather than the evidence/intelligence.

*There's a sensible debate to be had around this, particularly the fact that if such people are allowed back we either have to accept a greater risk to innocent lives or an increase in other state powers to mitigate that risk.


----------



## A380 (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> Quick shufty suggests India's not that simple either so that's 80%+ of the population of the red areas discounted. It's a lot more to do with whether the citizenship has to be applied for or is somehow automatically conferred than whether it's by blood or land.


80% of the red area? Didn’t know China had been hit that hard by Covid....


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

A380 said:


> 80% of the red area? Didn’t know China had been hit that hard by Covid....


That's what the plus sign was for.


----------



## A380 (May 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> That's what the plus sign was for.


?


----------



## Spymaster (May 29, 2021)

Athos said:


> At the very least, if such powers are to continue* then a single politicians shouldn't be the decision-maker - that just invites decisions based on populism rather than the evidence/intelligence.
> 
> *There's a sensible debate to be had around this, particularly the fact that if such people are allowed back we either have to accept a greater risk to innocent lives or an increase in other state powers to mitigate that risk.


I agree with this. It's somewhat academic given that there's never likely to be another Labour HS again, but the prospect of some Corbynesque loon welcoming all these fuckers back with open arms isn't one to savour.

What alternatives would you propose though?


----------



## Athos (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> I agree with this. It's somewhat academic given that there's never likely to be another Labour HS again, but the prospect of some Corbynesque loon welcoming all these fuckers back with open arms isn't one to savour.
> 
> What alternatives would you propose though?



Whilst far from perfect, having a panel of judges would be an improvement, as would an effective appeal system.


----------



## maomao (May 29, 2021)

A380 said:


> ?


I'm actually out the other wayby the look of it so your China covid comment makes even less sense : confused:


----------



## smmudge (May 29, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> ALL of the countries that bestow such citizenships will be red on the map (assuming the people who made it know what they’re doing).



Or they could be blue.


----------



## BillRiver (Jun 15, 2021)

Shamima Begum says ‘I was a dumb kid’ and pleads for UK return


----------



## Athos (Jun 15, 2021)

I don't blame her, but she's laying it on a bit thick with the whole reinvention of her image.  Not sure it'll help, though.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Jun 15, 2021)

Bring her home


----------



## Athos (Jun 15, 2021)

Shamina≠football


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2021)




----------



## maomao (Jun 15, 2021)

BillRiver said:


> Shamima Begum says ‘I was a dumb kid’ and pleads for UK return


How is this the first I've heard that Kim and Kanye are getting divorced?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 15, 2021)

maomao said:


> How is this the first I've heard that Kim and Kanye are getting divorced?


you'd be more in touch with things in a camp in the m.e.


----------



## maomao (Jun 15, 2021)

Now the thread's been bumped I'm tempted to question the court's decision again just so that Lionel fucking Hutz up there can tell us all his opinion for the ninetieth fucking time.


----------



## Spymaster (Jun 15, 2021)

maomao said:


> Now the thread's been bumped I'm tempted to question the court's decision again just so that Lionel fucking Hutz up there can tell us all his opinion for the ninetieth fucking time.



Such a nightmare having a bloke who knows what he's talking about on the thread.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Sep 15, 2021)

Shamima Begum begs for forgiveness in first ever live TV interview
					

The former east London school girl said she was ‘groomed’ by the terror group to flee to Syria




					www.standard.co.uk
				




I can’t see any of the current government being sympathetic to her case but I still say she should be allowed back.


----------



## Athos (Sep 15, 2021)

Now she's able to communicate from the camp, hopefully she can participate in proceedings, so her case can be heard and decided one way or the other.


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 15, 2021)

_Speaking to Good Morning Britain live from a refugee camp on Wednesday, the 22-year-old wearing pink nail varnish, a Nike baseball hat and a grey vest offered to help Boris Johnson tackle terrorism because *he “clearly doesn’t know what he is doing”.*_

Well Whatever you think of her she's not wrong about that. Dressing in a more Westernised fashion is clearly a somewhat cynical ploy for sympathy but I doubt she'll get much from either the public and certainly not from our political masters.
She lost her case to return to this country at the Supreme Court in Feb 2021 so she has zero right to return to argue the separate case about whether or not she can be stripped of her citizenship. She is going to be stuck in the Middle East for years if not the rest of her life.
Public sympathy is about the only (very unlikely) hope she has of returning to the UK,  perhaps she might have a (slightly) better chance of persuading the Dutch authorities to let her join her 'husband'
My position on this hasn't changed since this thread began, I have no sympathy for Begum but am still opposed to the idea of politicians being able to strip citizenship acquired by birth.


----------



## maomao (Sep 15, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Dressing in a more Westernised fashion is clearly a somewhat cynical ploy for sympathy


Or maybe burkas aren't that comfortable.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2021)

maomao said:


> Or maybe burkas aren't that comfortable.


Have you worn one?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 16, 2021)

maomao said:


> Or maybe burkas aren't that comfortable.


AND it’s a cynical ploy.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 16, 2021)

Well she actually wore hijab not burqa on her earlier TV appearances so it’s a bit like saying she stopped wearing vests because t-shirts aren’t very comfy.


----------



## Curiouscarl (Sep 18, 2021)

Probably be the catalyst for a civil war. The West is already clucking for a war with Chyna!


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 18, 2021)

Curiouscarl said:


> Probably be the catalyst for a civil war. The West is already clucking for a war with Chyna!



Civil war where?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 18, 2021)

Bring her home


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 18, 2021)

not-bono-ever said:


> Bring her home



To Bangladesh?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 18, 2021)

We have become a house divided on this. My view is softening towards letting her return, Mrs Sas's is not.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 18, 2021)

Sasaferrato said:


> We have become a house divided on this. My view is softening towards letting her return, Mrs Sas's is not.


Maybe if you hid her in the garage.


----------



## tonysingh (Sep 18, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Maybe if you hid her in the garage.



Is he hiding Mrs Sas or Shamima?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 18, 2021)

tonysingh said:


> Is he hiding Mrs Sas or Shamima?


Details.


----------



## tim (Sep 18, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Maybe if you hid her in the garage.



He's finding it hard in enough to keep her from noticing  that for the past 45 years Lord Lord Lucan has been hiding out in the attic and taking daily canters on Shergar who is hidden behind some planks in the shed.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Sep 18, 2021)

tim said:


> He's finding it hard in enough to keep her from noticing  that for the past 45 years Lord Lord Lucan has been hiding out in the attic and taking daily canters on Shergar who is hidden behind some planks in the shed.



Shit, rumbled, I'll need to move them again.


----------



## Riklet (Sep 19, 2021)

It's the ISIS terrorists and sympathisers that are the real victims in northern Syria tbh.


----------



## extra dry (Sep 22, 2021)

Get her back, she could be a vital resource for educating others/teens about the dangers of extremism.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 22, 2021)

She could do the Cbeebies book at bedtime.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 22, 2021)

extra dry said:


> Get her back, she could be a vital resource for educating others/teens about the dangers of extremism.



Yep.

No one else is capable of telling kids not to join genocidal rape cults.


----------



## extra dry (Sep 22, 2021)

Spymaster said:


> Yep.
> 
> No one else is capable of telling kids not to join genocidal rape cults.


She has the inside scoop as it were.  Plus she can answer questions like, 'what made you do it in the first place?' 'How were you recruited?' and 'What can I do to prevent it happening to me or my friends?'


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 22, 2021)

What stops her answering those questions where she is now?


----------



## extra dry (Sep 22, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What stops her answering those questions where she is now?


Nothing.  however coming face to face with a person involved in what she has gone through is far more powerful than just seeing it on screen.  
  I guessing a lot of people don't want her to come back which is understandable.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 22, 2021)

extra dry said:


> Nothing.  however coming face to face with a person involved in what she has gone through is far more powerful than just seeing it on screen.
> I guessing a lot of people don't want her to come back which is understandable.



What do you mean by it’s ‘far more powerful’ for begum’s Q&A to be done face to face?


----------



## extra dry (Sep 22, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What do you mean by it’s ‘far more powerful’ for begum’s Q&A to be done face to face?


What do you mean?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 22, 2021)

extra dry said:


> coming face to face with a person involved in what she has gone through is far more powerful than just seeing it on screen.



What do you mean by this?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 22, 2021)

Wouldn’t it be easier to get one of the many who quietly snuck back in to do this?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Sep 22, 2021)

Bring her home


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 22, 2021)

extra dry said:


> She has the inside scoop as it were.  Plus she can answer questions like, 'what made you do it in the first place?' 'How were you recruited?' and 'What can I do to prevent it happening to me or my friends?'



Big deal.


----------



## bimble (Sep 22, 2021)

people's endless fascination with her is amazing, i wonder if she's got a book deal yet.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2021)

My view has softened somewhat. If she makes it back she’ll be going straight to prison no doubt and after that will be somewhat less popular than Maxine Carr was. She’s fucked her life basically. Being stateless is pretty fucked though. She should be brought back to face whatever she faces. Which won’t be pretty. Being left in the wilderness isn’t justice though.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Sep 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> My view has softened somewhat. If she makes it back she’ll be going straight to prison no doubt and after that will be somewhat less popular than Maxine Carr was. She’s fucked her life basically. Being stateless is pretty fucked though. She should be brought back to face whatever she faces. Which won’t be pretty. Being left in the wilderness isn’t justice though.


I know exactly what you mean, but I just can't see it ever happening. No one in power is ever gonna wanna be the ones who bring her back, even to face any kind of justice.

Btw, is it still the Kurds who have to look after her at the moment?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> I know exactly what you mean, but I just can't see it ever happening. No one in power is ever gonna wanna be the ones who bring her back, even to face any kind of justice.
> 
> Btw, is it still the Kurds who have to look after her at the moment?


AFAIK… haven’t been following her plight too keenly. Her TV PR did thaw my icy heart a bit though. Which I guess was the point of it. But it’s basically illegal to make her stateless and I dislike those in power as much as fascist cunts. It’s like a toss of the coin.


----------



## alex_ (Sep 22, 2021)

bimble said:


> people's endless fascination with her is amazing, i wonder if she's got a book deal yet.



Bearing in mind she’s not been to court and is therefore currently innocent, she could keep the earnings too.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Bearing in mind she’s not been to court and is therefore currently innocent, she could keep the earnings too.


And then buy a ticket to Panama and live on a beach drinking pina coladas at which point every cunt would want her back and hung.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 22, 2021)

alex_ said:


> Bearing in mind she’s not been to court and is therefore currently innocent, she could keep the earnings too.


Probably wouldn't have to pay income tax.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Probably wouldn't have to pay income tax.


Camp might start charging rent though.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 22, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And then buy a ticket to Panama and live on a beach drinking pina coladas at which point every cunt would want her back and hung.



Pfft!  

We could send an unobtrusive MI6 operative round to get that sorted quietly and cheaply.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2021)

8ball said:


> Pfft!
> 
> We could send an unobtrusive MI6 operative round to get that sorted quietly and cheaply.


They struggled with Ronnie Biggs. They’ll have to wait until her money runs out and she gets cancer.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 22, 2021)

Thinking about it she could become a poster girl and star for Afghanistan. Until they ban telly again.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 23, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They struggled with Ronnie Biggs. They’ll have to wait until her money runs out and she gets cancer.



I’m guessing there will be less money to run out.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 23, 2021)

8ball said:


> Pfft!
> 
> We could send an unobtrusive MI6 operative round to get that sorted quietly and cheaply.


Is this an episode of Spooks or something?


----------



## Flavour (Aug 31, 2022)

possibly nonesense but pretty wild claims nonetheless being reported in the Times, de-paywalled here>




__





						archive.ph
					





					archive.ph
				




articles claims shamima and her mate were smuggled into Syria by a double agent who was working for both ISIS and Canadian intelligence


----------



## Lorca (Aug 31, 2022)

Ha, this quote by the head of the Met Counter-Terrorism Unit in the article above: '“If you are running agents, you are acquiescing to what they are doing. You are turning a blind eye to their actions because it is being trumped by a rich vein of intelligence.” - I don't recall them following that line during the SpyCops scandal, oddly enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

Lorca said:


> Ha, this quote by the head of the Met Counter-Terrorism Unit in the article above: '“If you are running agents, you are acquiescing to what they are doing. You are turning a blind eye to their actions because it is being trumped by a rich vein of intelligence.” - I don't recall them following that line during the SpyCops scandal, oddly enough.


Obviously. That's only when they're slagging off _other people_ running agents


----------



## zahir (Aug 31, 2022)

Flavour said:


> possibly nonesense but pretty wild claims nonetheless being reported in the Times, de-paywalled here>
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This was reported back in 2015: 


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/spy-accused-of-helping-teens-join-isis-claims-he-worked-for-canadian-intelligence-1.2993716


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

zahir said:


> This was reported back in 2015:
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/spy-accused-of-helping-teens-join-isis-claims-he-worked-for-canadian-intelligence-1.2993716




Does he explain exactly how the UK was “complicit” in smuggling people into Syria to support IS?


----------



## Chilli.s (Aug 31, 2022)

Unless it was an isis , not renowned for truth are they


----------



## SpookyFrank (Aug 31, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Thinking about it she could become a poster girl and star for Afghanistan. Until they ban telly again.



It's _taliban, _not _tellyban   _


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Does he explain exactly how the UK was “complicit” in smuggling people into Syria to support IS?


Same way they were complicit in paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland, I’d imagine: operatives embedded in the organisations doing stuff with the full knowledge and support of superiors.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Same way they were complicit in paramilitary murders in Northern Ireland, I’d imagine: operatives embedded in the organisations doing stuff with the full knowledge and support of superiors.



Like what, in the case of smuggling Begum to IS?

This chap seems to have some information that few others are aware of. Does he lay it out somewhere or are we just expected to believe him?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Like what, in the case of smuggling Begum to IS?
> 
> This chap seems to have some information that few others are aware of. Does he lay it out somewhere or are we just expected to believe him?


I know nothing of this guy, his credibility, or his evidence.  All I'm saying is that it's entirely believable that if the UK security services had infiltrated an Islamist sect, or a people-smuggling operation, their operatives would take part in the activities in the full knowledge of basically the UK state.  That's very much how it works.  There's any number of credible histories of various spheres you could consult.  I see no reason to believe IS and Syria would be any different.


----------



## A380 (Aug 31, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I know nothing of this guy, his credibility, or his evidence.  All I'm saying is that it's entirely believable that if the UK security services had infiltrated an Islamist sect, or a people-smuggling operation, their operatives would take part in the activities in the full knowledge of basically the UK state.  That's very much how it works.  There's any number of credible histories of various spheres you could consult.  I see no reason to believe IS and Syria would be any different.


If the UK didn't have agents (not officers) inside ISIS I'd want my (tax) money back. Doesn't  mean they had any degree of control, I doubt they were anywhere near as embedded as in the later stages of the Irish  campaign. This opinion just based on the time lines and lack of the close links there were Northern Ireland.

I'm still interested at why so many people seem to  want to deny Shamima Begum her agency in this?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I know nothing of this guy, his credibility, or his evidence.  All I'm saying is that it's entirely believable that if the UK security services had infiltrated an Islamist sect, or a people-smuggling operation, their operatives would take part in the activities in the full knowledge of basically the UK state.  That's very much how it works.  There's any number of credible histories of various spheres you could consult.  I see no reason to believe IS and Syria would be any different.



I've just been reading about Sabir and downloaded his book, although that's about something else. The allegation seems to be that a guy who was involved in the transport operation was also supplying intelligence to the Canadian embassy in Jordan, some of which may have been shared with British security services, including the names and addresses of people smuggled. That's intelligence gathering, not complicity in the smuggling of people.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I've just been reading about Sabir and downloaded his book, although that's about something else. The allegation seems to be that a guy who was involved in the transport operation was also supplying intelligence to the Canadian embassy in Jordan, some of which may have been shared with British security services, including the names and addresses of people smuggled. That's intelligence gathering, not complicity in the smuggling of people.


I don't know the details.  But it's not beyond belief they were more involved than is currently alleged.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Aug 31, 2022)

How much did you charge them Spy?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

A380 said:


> If the UK didn't have agents (not officers) inside ISIS I'd want my (tax) money back. Doesn't  mean they had any degree of control, I doubt they were anywhere near as embedded as in the later stages of the Irish  campaign.
> 
> I'm still interested at why so many people seem to  want to deny Shamima Begum her agency in this?


If the operative who smuggled her to IS was a double agent, that doesn't affect her agency compared to being smuggled by a non-double agent. It does, however, reflect something on the nature of the operations if they were happy to participate in the recruitment of 15-year-olds. It means that she was sacrificed to a larger cause. It means, regardless of her agency, that the UK owes her something. 

Not saying I think this is what happened, but like danny, I would say that it is the sort of thing that does happen.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If the operative who smuggled her to IS was a double agent, that doesn't affect her agency compared to being smuggled by a non-double agent. It does, however, reflect something on the nature of the operations if they were happy to participate in the recruitment of 15-year-olds. It means that she was sacrificed to a larger cause. It means, regardless of her agency, that the UK owes her something.
> 
> Not saying I think this is what happened, but like danny, I would say that it is the sort of thing that does happen.



Profiting from information supplied about things beyond your control doesn't make you complicit in those acts. Wilhelm Canaris supplied information to British security services throughout 1943 and 1944. That doesn't make the British government complicit in the Holocaust. What Sabir has alluded to there, is UK and Canadian _involvement_ in the smuggling of Begum to IS, to the extent that her citizenship should be restored. He needs to show us what he alleges he knows.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Profiting from information supplied about things beyond your control doesn't make you complicit in those acts. Wilhelm Canaris supplied information to British security services throughout 1943 and 1944. That doesn't make the British government complicit in the Holocaust. What Sabir has alluded to there, is UK and Canadian _involvement_ in the smuggling of Begum to IS, to the extent that her citizenship should be restored. He needs to show us what he alleges he knows.


I wouldn't judge the extent of involvement to need to be very large for the UK to have to take some responsibility for what happened. Simply knowing about the smuggling and failing to stop it because stopping it would have blown agents' cover would be enough - it would mean that Begum and others were sacrificed to the larger cause when they could have been stopped.


----------



## A380 (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If the operative who smuggled her to IS was a double agent, that doesn't affect her agency compared to being smuggled by a non-double agent. It does, however, reflect something on the nature of the operations if they were happy to participate in the recruitment of 15-year-olds. It means that she was sacrificed to a larger cause. It means, regardless of her agency, that the UK owes her something.
> 
> Not saying I think this is what happened, but like danny, I would say that it is the sort of thing that does happen.



Playing straight down the line for ISIS, western agent or double agent. The people who facilitated young people to travel to join the ISIS ‘Caliphate’ were cunts.

Doesn’t mean the young people who traveled didn’t have agency though.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I wouldn't judge the extent of involvement to need to be very large for the UK to have to take some responsibility for what happened. Simply knowing about the smuggling and failing to stop it because stopping it would have blown agents' cover would be enough - it would mean that Begum and others were sacrificed to the larger cause when they could have been stopped.


I disagree with that, but even if I didn’t, it’s quite a high bar you’ve set there. That UK security services knew that Begum, specifically, was being trafficked, and could have prevented it. At the moment we have the word of a Muslim academic and campaigner, on Twitter. Let’s see more evidence.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

Isn't the claim that the UK became aware she'd gone to Syria, through intel shared by Canada, provided by the Canadian agent who helped her get there, after the fact?  Is anybody suggesting the UK knew she was going to travel but chose not to stop her?


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

Athos said:


> Isn't the claim that the UK became aware she'd gone to Syria, through intel shared by Canada, provided by the Canadian agent who helped her get there, after the fact?



That’s my current understanding. Quite how that makes the UKG complicit in her trafficking, I’m not sure.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

Athos said:


> Isn't the claim that the UK became aware she'd gone to Syria, through intel shared by Canada, provided by the agent who helped her get there, after the fact?  Is anybody suggesting the UK knew she was going to travel but chose not to stop her?


'Our very close ally's agent smuggled her and we've subsequently lied about this' is complicity after the fact.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Our very close ally's agent smuggled her and we've subsequently lied about this' is complicity after the fact.


Hmmm, leaving aside the fact that it was a member ISIS - albeit one who was providing intelligence - rather than Canada who (allegedly) facilitated her travel, there's a significant difference between the UK knowing beforehand and choosing not to stop it versus knowing afterwards (when there was nothing it could do).


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> 'Our very close ally's agent smuggled her and we've subsequently lied about this' is complicity after the fact.



So you think that the security services should have told everyone that IS were smuggling people into Syria and one of the smugglers was supplying the Canadians with secret information? Preposterous.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> So you think that the security services should have told everyone that IS were smuggling people into Syria and one of the smugglers was supplying the Canadians with secret information? Preposterous.


Told everyone? No.

Acted appropriately in the knowledge of their own complicity? Yes.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Told everyone? No.
> 
> Acted appropriately in the knowledge of their own complicity? Yes.



Sorry, but the idea that the country owes her anything because they _may_ have been given information about other people who were smuggled into Syria, by ISIS, after they were smuggled, is ludicrous.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry, but the idea that the country owes her anything because they _may_ have been given information about other people who were smuggled into Syria, by ISIS, after they were smuggled, is ludicrous.


Where you're going wrong here is I think in terms of seeing this as a transactional relationship where there's a debit here and a credit there. She deserved as you would merit, a fair hearing in front of a court. The only danger she poses imo is of becoming a bore


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> So you think that the security services should have told everyone that IS were smuggling people into Syria and one of the smugglers was supplying the Canadians with secret information? Preposterous.


You could lose everything from 'that' to 'information' and the question would remain a fair one


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Sorry, but the idea that the country owes her anything because they _may_ have been given information about other people who were smuggled into Syria, by ISIS, after they were smuggled, is ludicrous.


Well that's at least closer to what I said. I'll give you that. You still wilfully miss the point. 

But we're never going to agree on this.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Profiting from information supplied about things beyond your control doesn't make you complicit in those acts. Wilhelm Canaris supplied information to British security services throughout 1943 and 1944. That doesn't make the British government complicit in the Holocaust. What Sabir has alluded to there, is UK and Canadian _involvement_ in the smuggling of Begum to IS, to the extent that her citizenship should be restored. He needs to show us what he alleges he knows.


That's what we have a system of tribunals and courts to hear


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Where you're going wrong here is I think in terms of seeing this as a transactional relationship where there's a debit here and a credit there.



It's not me seeing it that way, it's LBJ.



> She deserved as you would merit, a fair hearing in front of a court.



That's a different argument. The point he's arguing here is that she should be treated differently _because_ the UK were given information about people smuggling by the Canadians, which somehow makes them _complicit_ in her having been smuggled in the first place.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> It's not me seeing it that way, it's LBJ.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a different argument. The point he's arguing here is that she should be treated differently _because_ the UK were given information about people smuggling by the Canadians., which somehow makes them _complicit_ in her having been smuggled in the first place.


I'd rather see liz truss as PM than lbj - she has more nous


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You still wilfully miss the point.



If that's the case it's because you keep changing it!


----------



## tim (Aug 31, 2022)

A380 said:


> I'm still interested at why so many people seem to  want to deny Shamima Begum her agency in this?



The fact that she was a child when she left is a good enough reason for me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

tim said:


> The fact that she was a child when she left is a good enough reason for me.


fwiw my view on this is that it's messy. She was an adolescent, somewhere between child and adult, and imo, she exists in what Primo Levi would have called the grey zone wrt moral culpability. She doesn't get off for the terrible things she was actively complicit with (and by all accounts, she was a very enthusiastic participant), but at the same time she's also a victim - of groomers, of the men whom she actively helped, of a hypocritical UK government. 

Sometimes things aren't simple black and white.


----------



## A380 (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> So you think that the security services should have told everyone that IS were smuggling people into Syria and one of the smugglers was supplying the Canadians with secret information? Preposterous.


You don't understand. There are only goodies and badies. Goodies are always good, in every thing they do all the time ever and badies (who can of course only be white middle or upper class men western men) are always bad in every thing they do. Obvs.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fwiw my view on this is that it's messy. She was an adolescent, somewhere between child and adult, and imo, she exists in what Primo Levi would have called the grey zone wrt moral culpability. She doesn't get off for the terrible things she was actively complicit with (and by all accounts, she was a very enthusiastic participant), but at the same time she's also a victim - of groomers, of the men whom she actively helped, of a hypocritical UK government.
> 
> Sometimes things aren't simple black and white.


Like t.j. hooker said, there's no black or white but a million shades of grey. And I don't think it's all accounts, really is it. Just the accounts you recall.


----------



## A380 (Aug 31, 2022)

tim said:


> The fact that she was a child when she left is a good enough reason for me.


I didn't realise you were quite so  racist and sexist. But given some of your posts it not a huge surprise.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> If that's the case it's because you keep changing it!


It's a rare good move by lbj, moving target harder to hit


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

A380 said:


> You don't understand. There are only goodies and badies. Goodies are always good, in every thing they do all the time ever and badies (who can of course only be white middle or upper class men western men) are always bad in every thing they do. Obvs.


Either that, or Spy was saying something that I hadn't said and didn't think? 

But you knock yourself out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

A380 said:


> I didn't realise ...


Out of order. Fuck's sake.


----------



## A380 (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Out of order. Fuck's sake.


No it's  not. believing that  that young British Asian women aren't capable of making decisions  in line with Begum's is both. we have been over this time and time again on this thread before.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

This is not the gotcha you think it is. Out of fucking order.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Either that, or Spy was saying something that I hadn't said and didn't think?



You've been banging-on about the UK government’s supposed complicity in Begum's smuggling, and suggesting that she's owed something by them because of it.

That seems to be your position in a nutshell and it's nonsense.


----------



## A380 (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Out of order. Fuck's sake.





littlebabyjesus said:


> …. Out of fucking order.



You are Phil Mitchel and I claim my £5 reward.


----------



## tim (Aug 31, 2022)

A380 said:


> I didn't realise you were quite so  racist and sexist. But given some of your posts it not a huge surprise.



May a flock of migrating Canada geese fly into your engines.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 31, 2022)

A380 said:


> No it's  not. believing that  that young British Asian women aren't capable of making decisions  in line with Begum's is both. we have been over this time and time again on this thread before.



It's got absolutely fuck-all to do with her race or gender. She is responsible for her decisions, but not in the same way as an adult.

My GF, who really hates Isis and what Shamima Begum did, says the same about her age making a difference. And given that my GF is a very intelligent and self-aware British Bangladeshi woman I pretty much think she knows what the fuck she's talking about.


----------



## Rob Ray (Aug 31, 2022)

A380 said:


> No it's  not. believing that  that young British Asian women aren't capable of making decisions  in line with Begum's is both. we have been over this time and time again on this thread before.


Believing a 15-year-old groomed as a younger teenager was a) a victim and b) not capable of the sort of informed decision-making deserving of a punishment that would not be meted out to people who are not of Asian heritage (permanent removal of citizenship/dumping in another country) is not racist or sexist. As a viewpoint it can be applied just as equally to boys and is not dependent on ethnicity (saying someone does deserve to have their citizenship removed on the other hand actually _is_ dependent on ethnicity). You are free to think he's wrong but this is wind-up toss and you know it.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Believing a 15-year-old groomed as a younger teenager was a) a victim and b) not capable of the sort of informed decision-making that deserves a punishment that would not be meted out to people who are not of Asian heritage (permanent removal of citizenship/dumping in another country) is not racist or sexist. As a viewpoint it can be applied just as equally to boys and is not dependent on ethnicity. You are free to think he's wrong but this is wind-up toss and you know it.



Have we seen any compelling evidence that she was groomed?

Jack Letts was stripped of his British citizenship; he was not of Asian heritage.


----------



## xenon (Aug 31, 2022)

Ah here we go again, again.


----------



## Dystopiary (Aug 31, 2022)

Athos said:


> Have we seen any compelling evidence that she was groomed?
> 
> Jack Letts was stripped of his British citizenship; he was not of Asian heritage.



She was 15 ffs, that's pretty compelling evidence in itself. There's a reason the UK marriage laws were changed recently to made marriage of under 18 year olds illegal. It's known she was talking with ADULTS about the IS ideology. That is grooming. Flipping eck, most 15 year olds aren't getting into weird cults, but they're generally not held to the same standards as adults, and rightly so. As with courts taking age into account for young adults, let alone kids.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> She was 15 ffs, that's pretty compelling evidence in itself. There's a reason the UK marriage laws were changed recently to made marriage of under 18 year olds illegal. It's known she was talking with ADULTS about the IS ideology. That is grooming. Flipping eck, most 15 year olds aren't getting into weird cults, but they're generally not held to the same standards as adults, and rightly so. As with courts taking age into account for young adults, let alone kids.


Is this your first time on the athos show?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2022)

xenon said:


> Ah here we go again, again.


This is a new series of the athos show. Even if it looks like a repeat


----------



## Dystopiary (Aug 31, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Is this your first time on the athos show?


I tripped didn't I? I bloody fell.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> ... she was talking with ADULTS about the IS ideology. That is grooming.


Is it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

Athos said:


> Have we seen any compelling evidence that she was groomed?
> 
> Jack Letts was stripped of his British citizenship; he was not of Asian heritage.


We've been over this. Jack Letts knew he had Canadian citizenship. Indeed he tried to use it before the UK stripped him of his UK citizenship. Begum had no idea about her right to Bangladeshi citizenship and indeed wouldn't have even theoretically had it had she been over 21. Also the Bangladeshi government disagrees with the British government about her citizenship so she has been left stateless by the British government's unilateral act. 

The decision to remove Begum's British citizenship based solely on the fact that her parents were born in Bangladesh has the effect, at a stroke, of changing the status of thousands of young British people who now have an inferior position regarding their citizenship due to the nationality of their parents. All those young British people are people with Bangladeshi heritage. That's fucking racist.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

Athos said:


> Is it?


Yep.


----------



## Dystopiary (Aug 31, 2022)

Athos said:


> Is it?


Yes.


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We've been over this.


You were wrong about it the last time too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 31, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You were wrong about this the last time too.


Your position on this is a fucking disgrace.

Both you and Athos should have a word with yourselves for defending the arbitrary use of power to discriminate in this way. Just cos you don't like the person its being used against.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> We've been over this. Jack Letts knew he had Canadian citizenship. Indeed he tried to use it before the UK stripped him of his UK citizenship. Begum had no idea about her right to Bangladeshi citizenship and indeed wouldn't have even theoretically had it had she been over 21. Also the Bangladeshi government disagrees with the British government about her citizenship so she has been left stateless by the British government's unilateral act.
> 
> The decision to remove Begum's British citizenship based solely on the fact that her parents were born in Bangladesh has the effect, at a stroke, of changing the status of thousands of young British people who now have an inferior position regarding their citizenship due to the nationality of their parents. All those young British people are people with Bangladeshi heritage. That's fucking racist.


I don't necessarily disagree with much of that (except that it is the Bangadeshi gvernment's breach of Bangladeshi and internatonal law that's made her stateless); the point was that it's not acccurate say that the state wouldn't do the same thing (i.e. strip citizenship) to non-asians (even if the context and effect of those actions might be different).


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your position on this is a fucking disgrace.



Whereas yours is simply muddled and counterfactual.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Your position on this is a fucking disgrace.
> 
> Both you and Athos should have a word with yourselves for defending the arbitrary use of power to discriminate in this way. Just cos you don't like the person its being used against.


I've not defended it; I've criticised it repeatedly.  I just don't feel the need to make stuff up (e.g. an unevidenced assertion that she was groomed) as a basis for criticism.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep.





Dystopiary said:


> Yes.



Hmmm, not convinced that any discussion between a 15 year old and an adult amounts to grooming.  For me, grooming implies some manipulation/overbearing of choice or free will.  And we jst don't know what happened here.  That might be what happened, but, equally, she might well have been and enthusiastic and committed jihadists without any maniplation.


----------



## Dystopiary (Aug 31, 2022)

Athos said:


> Hmmm, not convinced that any discussion between a 15 year old and an adult amounts to grooming.  For me, grooming implies some manipulation/overbearing of choice or free will.  And we jst don't know what happened here.  That might be what happened, but, equally, she might well have been and enthusiastic and committed jihadists without any maniplation.


That's the exact same argument that gets used to excuse awful shit. Not doing this.


----------



## Athos (Aug 31, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> That's the exact same argument that gets used to excuse awful shit. Not doing this.


What do you think grooming is, then?

And you're literally trying to excuse someone who joined a murderous gang of fascists who used torture and mass rape as a weapon!


----------



## scifisam (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> Hmmm, not convinced that any discussion between a 15 year old and an adult amounts to grooming.  For me, grooming implies some manipulation/overbearing of choice or free will.  And we jst don't know what happened here.  That might be what happened, but, equally, she might well have been and enthusiastic and committed jihadists without any maniplation.



Come on, it's not like anyone's saying Shamima Begum is entirely without any responsibility for her actions. She was 15 and should have been treated like any other 15-year-old - ie. not the same as if she were an adult. It would still mean a long prison sentence anyway, if she were allowed to return to the UK, even without adding her subsequent actions as an adult.

We don't know what happened, because there hasn't been a trial. We do know she was 15 and left the country to marry an adult man that she'd met online and been persuaded to travel to marry him. There really isn't any way that isn't grooming - it's not "any discussion between a a 15-year-old and an adult."

And you still really should retract your bizarre accusation of racism and sexism. That was out of order.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

scifisam said:


> We do know she was 15 and left the country to marry an adult man that she'd met online and been persuaded to travel to marry him. There really isn't any way that isn't grooming - it's not "any discussion between a a 15-year-old and an adult."
> 
> And you still really should retract your bizarre accusation of racism and sexism. That was out of order.



We don't know she was "persuaded" to do anything.

ETA: Or that she met him online before she travelled. 

I didn't make that accusation; it was somebody else.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> We don't know she was "persuaded" to do anything.


She got pregnant more often than is usual for not doing anything.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> We don't know she was "persuaded" to do anything.


'_She_ seduced _me_. She was begging for it.'

'She was very mature for her age.'

He was about 24-25, btw, the husband, when they met online.


----------



## strung out (Sep 1, 2022)

Very telling all these middle aged blokes who think a 15 year old girl is 100% culpable for her actions if she's 'up for it', and deserving of all the consequences that come with it. Very telling indeed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2022)

scifisam said:


> Come on, it's not like anyone's saying Shamima Begum is entirely without any responsibility for her actions. She was 15 and should have been treated like any other 15-year-old - ie. not the same as if she were an adult. It would still mean a long prison sentence anyway, if she were allowed to return to the UK, even without adding her subsequent actions as an adult.
> 
> We don't know what happened, because there hasn't been a trial. We do know she was 15 and left the country to marry an adult man that she'd met online and been persuaded to travel to marry him. There really isn't any way that isn't grooming - it's not "any discussion between a a 15-year-old and an adult."
> 
> And you still really should retract your bizarre accusation of racism and sexism. That was out of order.


It was A380 who made the bizarre accusation. And yes, he should retract it. I purposely didn't quote the words to give him the chance to edit. He chose instead to double down. Not a good look.


----------



## RD2003 (Sep 1, 2022)

strung out said:


> Very telling all these middle aged blokes who think a 15 year old girl is 100% culpable for her actions if she's 'up for it', and deserving of all the consequences that come with it. Very telling indeed.


Why? I haven't been part of this debate, and don't much care about it, but for one thing, you are reading into what they say what you want them to have said. And for another, you seem to be assuming that all 15 year-old girls are the same, and in need of your empathy. That in itself could be considered 'telling,' so I wouldn't get too indignant/excited.

None of us really know anything at all about what this young woman is like, her background, or what she really thinks. It's quite likely that she would have laughed at you and your empathy (like so many 15 year-olds would.) She might do so now she's older, but then again, she might not. We don't know.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

strung out said:


> Very telling all these middle aged blokes who think a 15 year old girl is 100% culpable for her actions if she's 'up for it', and deserving of all the consequences that come with it. Very telling indeed.



What a bizarre post.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> '_She_ seduced _me_. She was begging for it.'
> 
> 'She was very mature for her age.'
> 
> He was about 24-25, btw, the husband, when they met online.


I'm not sure they met online before she went out there. Do you have a source for that? Because I've not seen her claim that, and everything I have read says they first met after she arrived.

I'm not suggesting it was OK for him to marry a child after she arrived, but that's not the same thing as grooming her to travel out there.

You seem to be inventing facts to support your position that she was somehow tricked/ manipulated into going, rather than choosing to do so because she believed in what IS were doing.

It's possible to disagree with this law, and even the way it's been applied, without making stuff up to absolve her.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

strung out said:


> Very telling all these middle aged blokes who think a 15 year old girl is 100% culpable for her actions if she's 'up for it', and deserving of all the consequences that come with it. Very telling indeed.


I've not said anything of the sort. I've merely said that there's no real evidence that she was groomed (except her obviously self-serving claims).

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she wasn't; I'm saying we don't know, such that it's a bit ridiculous to keep saying that she was.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> I've not said anything of the sort. I've merely said that there's no evidence that she was groomed.



The term “grooming” seems to me like an increasingly fraught way of describing or understanding anything these days, what with the definition being bent out of shape by all manner of groups for ideological reasons.

She _was_ 15, though, and certain individuals were very interested in radicalising young girls with the aim of making babies for the Caliphate.

Let’s not pretend she wasn’t at least “persistently encouraged” online before heading off abroad.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure they met online before she went out there. Do you have a source for that? Because I've see not seen her claim that, and everything I have read says they first met after she arrived.
> 
> I'm not suggesting it was OK for him to marry a child after she arrived, but that's not the same thing as grooming her to travel out there.
> 
> ...



I’m pretty sure that in an interview with the arse she married he said they first met in Raqqa. Not sure where they’ve got this online meeting from.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I’m pretty sure that in an interview with the arse she married he said they first met in Raqqa. Not sure where they’ve got this online meeting from.



That does ring a bell, though the word “met” could be doing a bit of legwork there.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

It doesn’t much matter. Whether they met online before she travelled or were introduced afterwards doesn’t prove grooming one way or the other. If they met online before, people will say he groomed her. If they’d never met before they’ll say she was groomed by others. It’s moot.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> It doesn’t much matter. Whether they met online before she travelled or were introduced afterwards doesn’t prove grooming one way or the other. If they met online before people will say he groomed her. If they’d never met before they’ll say she was groomed by others. It’s moot.


If it's proof we're after, looks like a court case would be the way forward...but weren't some against that?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> If it's proof we're after, looks like a court case would be the way forward...but weren't some against that?



I’m not sure. Personally I’m all in favour of her facing a trial. It should be held in the country where the crimes of the organisation she joined have been committed. Syria or Iraq.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> If it's proof we're after, looks like a court case would be the way forward...but weren't some against that?


Yes, she should be tried locally, where she would have the chance to run these defences/arguments in mitigation.  Having her rot without any due process can't be right.

Though it does raise the question of what would happen in the (admittedly unlikely) event she's acquitted, given she's not entitled to enter the UK*, and Bangladesh don't want her.  I guess they'd have to look for a third country that's willing to have her.

*unless and until her appeal succeeds.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yes, she should be tried locally, where she would have the chance to run these defences/arguments in mitigation.  Having her rot without any due process can't be right.
> 
> Though it does raise the question of what would happen in the (admittedly unlikely) event she's acquitted, given she's not entitled to enter the UK*, and Bangladesh don't want her.  I guess they'd have to look for a third country that's willing to have her.
> 
> *unless and until her appeal succeeds.


Have to admit that I've not really followed the story very carefully of late, but if the local authorities had wanted to try her (& others in a similar position) wouldn't they have arrested her by now?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yes, she should be tried locally, where she would have the chance to run these defences/arguments in mitigation.  Having her rot without any due process can't be right.
> 
> Though it does raise the question of what would happen in the (admittedly unlikely) event she's acquitted, given she's not entitled to enter the UK*, and Bangladesh don't want her.  I guess they'd have to look for a third country that's willing to have her.
> 
> *unless and until her appeal succeeds.



If she was acquitted she’d have pretty solid grounds to have her citizenship restored.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Have to admit that I've not really followed the story very carefully of late, but if the local authorities had wanted to try her (& others in a similar position) wouldn't they have arrested her by now?



Iraq have offered to try the detainees. France has let them, with their citizens. IIRC, the reason Begum hasn’t been handed over to them is because the UKG _hasn’t_ given permission for it’s citizens to be handed over to Iraq. Plus of course, she is no longer a British citizen so they can’t very well give it.


----------



## brogdale (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Iraq have offered to try the detainees. France has let them, with their citizens. IIRC, the reason Begum hasn’t been handed over to them is because the UKG _hasn’t_ given permission for it’s citizens to be handed over to Iraq. Plus of course, she is no longer a British citizen so they can’t very well give it.


Interesting; makes the decision to strip citizenship look somewhat unhelpful, then?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Interesting; makes the decision to strip citizenship look somewhat unhelpful, then?


I don’t know, that’s my speculation. Pretty much every country who has dual nationals in the camps have been stripping their citizenships. I think the Dutch and Canadians are the most prolific. No idea what’s happening with them.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Have to admit that I've not really followed the story very carefully of late, but if the local authorities had wanted to try her (& others in a similar position) wouldn't they have arrested her by now?


I'm not sure they want to. I think they'd rather just offload her to someone else.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> If she was acquitted she’d have pretty solid grounds to have her citizenship restored.


Depends on what evidence was adduced by the prosecution versus what intel is known to the Home Sec, I suppose.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

In any event, despite her previously arguing that her appeal couldn't proceed without her being allowed back into the UK, she now says it can (as predicted), and the court has agreed.

The court will decide on all of her remaining grounds of appeal (including an amended ground in respect of alleged trafficking) in November.

Edited because, as I'm reading the different judgements, Begum and the court have flip-flopped back and forth about what they seek/will allow.  The above seems to be the current position.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

Ok, so I bought the book in which the supposed allegations are made this morning and, wholly unsurprisingly, it says nothing whatsoever that suggests complicity on the behalf of governments. It’s quite critical of the  Canadian secret service (CSIS) for not sharing intel with the British quickly enough but doesn’t even get close to suggesting British involvement. It even states that there was absolutely nothing the Canadians could have done to stop the girls from travelling. 

The Twitter posts are nonsense from people who either haven’t read the book, or are deliberately misrepresenting it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Twitter posts are nonsense


Hold the phone!


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Hold the phone!



You say that, but with the gusto they’re often quoted with on here you’d think Twitter was the ultimate organ of truth and reason!


----------



## cesare (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You say that, but with the gusto they’re often quoted with on here you’d think Twitter was the ultimate organ of truth and reason!


There are some threads that just resemble a Twitter harvest with no accompanying insight or opinion.


----------



## danny la rouge (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You say that, but with the gusto they’re often quoted with on here you’d think Twitter was the ultimate organ of truth and reason!


I mean, I can’t speak for others, but yes, the fact that something has been tweeted in itself means only that it has been tweeted.


----------



## rubbershoes (Sep 1, 2022)

cesare said:


> There are some threads that just resemble a Twitter harvest with no accompanying insight or opinion.



Just like many newspaper "articles"


----------



## cesare (Sep 1, 2022)

rubbershoes said:


> Just like many newspaper "articles"


But at least with articles, it's usually clear who's written them and in what context e.g the publication. Twitter is an anonymised level on top of that.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

This is Tasnime Akunji (Begum’s lawyer) on the information in the book:



> “However [Britain has] been co-operating with a western ally, trading sensitive intelligence with them whilst they have effectively been nabbing British children and trafficking them across the Syrian border for delivery to Isis all in the name of intelligence-gathering.”



The Canadians have “effectively been nabbing British children and trafficking them…”

This is _her lawyer_ engaging in hysterical hyperbole and outright bullshit. What a fucking idiot.

If that’s skill level of her legal representative it really doesn’t bode well for the likely quality of her appeal, does it?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 1, 2022)

brogdale said:


> Have to admit that I've not really followed the story very carefully of late, but if the local authorities had wanted to try her (& others in a similar position) wouldn't they have arrested her by now?



IIRC the Kurdish authorities have stated that they don't have the capacity to try everyone and would prefer that European nationals be repatriated.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> If she was acquitted she’d have pretty solid grounds to have her citizenship restored.



If removal of citizenship is a punishment why was it done before any trial took place?


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> If removal of citizenship is a punishment why was it done before any trial took place?



Was it a punishment? It was done on the grounds of national security in the wake of her giving an interview that was supportive of IS and the Manchester Arena bombing. 

If you give an interview saying blowing up kids pop concerts is justified, don’t be surprised when the government hits you with everything at their disposal.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Was it a punishment? It was done on the grounds of national security in the wake of her giving an interview that was supportive of IS and the Manchester Arena bombing.
> 
> If you give an interview saying blowing up kids pop concerts is justified, don’t be surprised when the government hits you with everything at their disposal.



Rendering someone stateless is not at their disposal. It contravenes international law.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Rendering someone stateless is not at their disposal. It contravenes international law.



Good job they didn’t do that then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Good job they didn’t do that then.


Yes they did. And they did it in a way that seemed designed to create ammunition for radicalisers. 

See how they treat us? You'll never be accepted here.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Rendering someone stateless is not at their disposal. It contravenes international law.


Even if she is _de facto_ stateless (and I accept that there's a reasonable argument that's the case), it's a consequence of the subsequent actions of Bangladesh (which contravene international and Bangladeshi law).


----------



## Raheem (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> Even if she is _de facto_ stateless (and I accept that there's a reasonable argument that's the case), it's a consequence of the subsequent actions of Bangladesh (which contravene international and Bangladeshi law).


The prior actions, just in point of fact.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes they did. And they did it in a way that seemed designed to create ammunition for radicalisers.
> 
> See how they treat us? You'll never be accepted here.


They didn't make her stateless. 

But, yes, it's a shit law insofar as a two-tier citizenship plays into the hands of those who'd seek to drive a wedge.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

Raheem said:


> The prior actions, just in point of fact.


No. Bangladesh only disavowed her after her UK citizenship was revoked.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yes they did.



No they didn’t. Bangladesh did. This has been explained to you in detail before. Nothing has changed since.


----------



## cesare (Sep 1, 2022)

Does anyone know if there's a timeline/chronology? (Sorry if there's one posted earlier in the thread)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Sep 1, 2022)

Athos said:


> No. Bangladesh only disavowed her after her UK citizenship was revoked.


They had never avowed her in the first place. This is sophistry.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They had never avowed her in the first place. This is sophistry.



Nonsense. And you know it is.


----------



## Athos (Sep 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They had never avowed her in the first place. This is sophistry.


It's really not.  There was no need for Bangladesh to personally 'avow' her; that children of (Bangladesh-born)  Bangladeshis have Bangladeshi citizenship (until they reach 21) under Bangladeshi law is pretty much settled for the purposes of UK proceedings (see, for example, the cases of _E3, N3, C3, C4_, and _C7_).

I know they're trying to cobble together some claim that the decision caused her _de facto _statelessness, but it's hard to see how that could succeed given it was the result of the subsequent actions of Bangladeshi politicians.

Genuinely, good luck to her; it's abhorrent that somebody should effectively be denied any right to rights (as Hannah Arendt describes citizenship), such that they're left to rot, but it's hard to see how a court could find the SSHD acted unlawfully* with the law as it stands.  (Particularly after the way the Supreme Court decided this point in the case of _Pham v. The Secretary of the State for the Home Department_ (25 March 2015) United Kingdom Supreme Court 19 [UK].)

Again, you seem to be conflating (legitimate) criticism of what the law says with (misconceived) theories that the HS broke it.

*On the statelessness ground, at least; there are other grounds that appear to have a better chance.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 1, 2022)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See how they treat us? You'll never be accepted here.



What _are_ you on about?

“Us” as in people who travel 3000 miles to join genocidal rapist sects?

Speak for yourself if you like mate, but count me out.

As far as being accepted is concerned, I’ll comfort myself in the knowledge that I’m not going to have my British rights rescinded if I don’t join a terrorist cult.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Sep 3, 2022)

I'm sure this will run and run. Doesn't it ultimately boil down to the fact she was in Isis when she was 18 regardless of what went on previously.
That was the government's thinking when they stripped her of citizenship and I'm sure they had intelligence we're not privy to. I'm sure if the family's lawyers keep pushing she will get home when a UK govt. decides it's politically acceptable.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 3, 2022)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I'm sure this will run and run. Doesn't it ultimately boil down to the fact she was in Isis when she was 18 regardless of what went on previously.
> That was the government's thinking when they stripped her of citizenship and I'm sure they had intelligence we're not privy to. I'm sure if the family's lawyers keep pushing she will get home when a UK govt. decides it's politically acceptable.


She'll probably end up presenting some shitty TV prog for the BBC and becoming a national treasure.


----------



## friedaweed (Sep 3, 2022)

kenny g said:


> She'll probably end up presenting some shitty TV prog for the BBC and becoming a national treasure.


Chanel 5. Tabloid target.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Chanel 5. Tabloid target.


She's going to replace matt lucas on the great british bake-off


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

DJWrongspeed said:


> I'm sure this will run and run. Doesn't it ultimately boil down to the fact she was in Isis when she was 18 regardless of what went on previously.
> That was the government's thinking when they stripped her of citizenship and I'm sure they had intelligence we're not privy to. I'm sure if the family's lawyers keep pushing she will get home when a UK govt. decides it's politically acceptable.


The legal proceedings have a load of procedural points which don't look too hopefull, and the substantive point - that the Home Sec's decision wasn't reasonable.   We have little idea whether or not it was, given we don't know what the intel says.   But it's very a high bar for the SIAC to overturn it. 

Overall, her appeal has a chance, but I'd have thought a better chance will come with a Labour Home Sec.


----------



## A380 (Sep 3, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> No they didn’t. Bangladesh did. This has been explained to you in detail before. Nothing has changed since.



There you go with your fucking  facts again.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 3, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> She's going to replace matt lucas on the great british bake-off


Or she could host "Would ISIS Lie To You"


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 3, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> As far as being accepted is concerned, I’ll comfort myself in the knowledge that I’m not going to have my British rights rescinded if I don’t join a terrorist cult.



What is used against the guilty will be used against the innocent. 

This is all the more true of anything that can be done summarily, without charge trial or conviction.

Tom Tugendhat, proud and eager participant in illegal wars of aggression, recently advocated removal of British citizenship from all Russian nationals by way of collective punishment. This would presumably include those who had renounced their former citizenship and would therefore be left stateless. 

I'm surprised, and yet not suprised at all, to see that the response to revelations about Begum having been trafficked and in all probability sent off to die by western intelligence agents is to simply double down. I don't think it has anything to do with the facts of the case, however many experts in Bangladeshi law we suddenly have on staff. I think it's a refusal to accept what the case represents; namely that the fact that the 'good guys' are up to their elbows in blood and up to their knees in shit.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 3, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> What is used against the guilty will be used against the innocent.
> 
> This is all the more true of anything that can be done summarily, without charge trial or conviction.
> 
> ...



If you are able to present any evidence of “the good guys being up to their elbows and knees in shit”, please carry on. You’ll be the first person to do so in the 174 pages of this thread, so I look forward to it.

And when you suggest people have “doubled down” in regards to Begum being trafficked by the west, you actually mean they’ve presented firm evidence that she wasn’t, don’t you?

And why do you presume Tugendhat’s proposal included stripping citizenship from those who hold only British nationality? That’s just you making silly stuff up again, isn’t it? Again, have you any evidence of this, or evidence that it has _ever_ been done?


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> What is used against the guilty will be used against the innocent.
> 
> This is all the more true of anything that can be done summarily, without charge trial or conviction.
> 
> ...


You make some good points about this law - the creation of two-tier citizenship, the potential for use against the innocent, and the lack of proper checks and balances.  (Albeit you've not addressed the alternative means for dealing with people where intel suggests they're extremely dangerous but it can't be put before a criminal court - essentially accepting a greater risk or other more draconian powers.)

And I'm sure you're right that UK is up to its eyes in dodginess all over the world; it's not a matter of good versus bad, so much as awful versus less awful.

But much of your post is pure hyperbole.  Even if what's claimed is true, it'd amount to people smuggling rather than trafficking (the latter being against the subject's will).  And her travel was facilitated by an ISIS operative, albeit one who may have told Canada about her after the fact.  There was nothing the UK could've done to stop her at that point, and it's ridiculous to imply that the west sent her. This sort of nonsense actually distracts and detracts from the real criticisms of what's happened here.

As an aside,  Tugendhat's proposal was ridiculous, but he suggested expelling Russian citizens; obviously, this wouldn't include those who were no longer citizens, and clearly he wasn't proposing making people stateless - that's something you've invented.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 3, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> … however many experts in Bangladeshi law we suddenly have on staff.



You mean the couple of people on the thread who have actually bothered to read the relevant material issued by the Bangladeshi government?


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You mean the couple of people on the thread who have actually bothered to read the relevant material issued by the Bangladeshi government?


You don't even need to do that; just read the judgements in the English courts to understand how they treat these questions.


----------



## kenny g (Sep 3, 2022)

Athos said:


> I'd have thought a better chance will come with a Labour Home Sec.


Can well forsee her being sacrificed on the alter of tabloid news agendas, especially under a labour HS attempting to appear tough on touristism.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2022)

Would she not stand a better chance if she went along the lines of...

Had UK and Bangladeshi citizenship, but was unaware I had the Bangladeshi one.
I joined ISIS.
UK government cancelled my UK citizenship, leaving me with one which I didn't know I had. 
The result of the UK decision is that I can only travel to a country which has vowed to execute me if I arrive there.
Something, something Council of Europe...


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 3, 2022)

Athos said:


> You don't even need to do that; just read the judgements in the English courts to understand how they treat these questions.



But there are certain people here who would put the UK judgements down to a racist interpretation of Bangladeshi law. Because white British judges are obviously corrupt.


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Would she not stand a better chance if she went along the lines of...
> 
> Had UK and Bangladeshi citizenship, but was unaware I had the Bangladeshi one.
> I joined ISIS.
> ...


She can try. But will be difficult, given the court have to decide the lawfulness of the decision *at the time it was made*.  That was *before* Bangladesh said anything about her.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2022)

Athos said:


> She can try. But will be difficult, given the court have to decide the lawfulness of the decision *at the time it was made*.  That was *before* Bangladesh said anything about her.




Bangladesh had vowed to execute any of it's citizens that joined Daesh before she was stripped of her UK citizenship, so as part of our commitments to the Council of Europe that should have been taken in to account. I reckon that's got a better chance than the hysterical nonsense her lawyer's been spouting about Canada at least...


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bangladesh had vowed to execute any of it's citizens that joined Daesh before she was stripped of her UK citizenship, so as part of our commitments to the Council of Europe that should have been taken in to account. I reckon that's got a better chance than the hysterical nonsense her lawyer's been spouting about Canada at least...


She joined at 15, which is below the age of offending at which the death penalty applies.

The British courts will go by what Bangladeshi law says, not comments by politicians. 

Anything would be better than some of the nonsense he dreams up!


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2022)

She remained a member once she reached 18, the noose awaits...


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She remained a member once she reached 18, the noose awaits...


It's bullshit. She's not going there. There's no real prospect of her being executed by Bangladesh.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2022)

Athos said:


> It's bullshit. She's not going there. There's no real prospect of her being executed by Bangladesh.



Seeing as her citizenship is Bangladeshi and she has been a member is ISIS, where else can she go? No other country will allow her in, the only one who will has said they will string her up (they haven't offed any yet, but aren't shy when it comes to the rope), she's fucked to spend eternity in a camp in a country that wants to close the camps and move on. 

Maybe Holland will have her?


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 3, 2022)

A380 said:


> There you go with your fucking  facts again.


No wonder we've had enough of <spits> experts


----------



## MickiQ (Sep 3, 2022)

I think there is some possibility that she might one day come back here but not for a good many years though. It will require 2 things to happen. 1) A change in the UK Govt to one that is prepared to at least let her back in to plead her case which realistically means a non-Tory one whenever that is and 2) the situation in Syria become stable enough for her members of her family and/or friends being able to travel out there to get her since it is unlikely ANY British Govt is likely to send the RAF to get her. So she is probably stuck out there for several years, probably at least a decade and possibly the rest of her life.


----------



## Spymaster (Sep 3, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She remained a member once she reached 18, the noose awaits...



She was 19 when she said the Manchester Arena bomb was justifiable. Only a couple of years younger than the cunt who detonated it.


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Seeing as her citizenship is Bangladeshi and she has been a member is ISIS, where else can she go? No other country will allow her in, the only one who will has said they will string her up (they haven't offed any yet, but aren't shy when it comes to the rope), she's fucked to spend eternity in a camp in a country that wants to close the camps and move on.
> 
> Maybe Holland will have her?


Nowhere wants her.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2022)

Athos said:


> Nowhere wants her.




Not even Millwall?


----------



## Athos (Sep 3, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Not even Millwall?


Especially Millwall.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Sep 3, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> She was 19 when she said the Manchester Arena bomb was justifiable. Only a couple of years younger than the cunt who detonated it.




Sure. By that time she had been living in the ‘caliphate’ for >3 years. That’s gotta fuck with your mind some…


----------



## Athos (Nov 21, 2022)

Her appeal to SIAC just about to start.  Looking like the main thrust will be the alleged Canadian state-sponsored trafficking point.


----------



## bogbrush (Nov 21, 2022)

Be honest.  You would, wouldn't you?


----------



## A380 (Nov 21, 2022)

bogbrush said:


> Be honest.  You would, wouldn't you? View attachment 352322View attachment 352323



WTF?


----------



## LDC (Nov 21, 2022)

bogbrush said:


> Be honest.  You would, wouldn't you?


 
Reported you for being a misogynist prick.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 21, 2022)

This isn't 4chan, bogbrush, take that shit elsewhere.

On the subject of spouting bloodthirsty crap Spymaster, you know perfectly well that as bad or worse is said all the time by people who have, for example, been through a war or fallen in with hard-line types. And drawing vulnerable teens into these attitudes is how death cults work.

Not only does it expose your own lack of human feeling to use such lines to try and dehumanise and justify inhuman treatment of another, it's also a ridiculous attitude in practical terms. How do you ever expect to draw people away from such cults if you slam the door on any hope of redemption?


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2022)

bogbrush said:


> Be honest.  You would, wouldn't you? View attachment 352322View attachment 352323


I'd definitely ban you for a week for posting up such vile, misogynistic shit.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Nov 21, 2022)

bogbrush said:


> Be honest.  You would, wouldn't you?



Fucking hell. Well done on totally not reading the room.


----------



## JimW (Nov 21, 2022)

bogbrush said:


> Be honest.  You would, wouldn't you? View attachment 352322View attachment 352323


I've reported this shite.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 21, 2022)

JimW said:


> I've reported this shite.


They got banned quarter of an hour ago.


----------



## JimW (Nov 21, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They got banned quarter of an hour ago.


I know, I was cooking and reading and didn't refresh. Still, safest to get that boot in when they're already down.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They got banned quarter of an hour ago.


but they'll be back


----------



## tim (Nov 21, 2022)

editor said:


> I'd definitely ban you for a week for posting up such vile, misogynistic shit.


Just a week?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 21, 2022)

tim said:


> Just a week?


people have had permabans for less


----------



## editor (Nov 21, 2022)

tim said:


> Just a week?


Feedback forum-->


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 21, 2022)

On the subject of radicalisation and extremism, including jihadis, Deeyah Khan has done some good stuff about that (atleast two documenetaries I think) and has had some interesting things to say about it.


----------



## ItStillWontWork (Nov 22, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> How do you ever expect to draw people away from such cults if you slam the door on any hope of redemption?



Would you apply this to fascists as well?


----------



## Riklet (Nov 22, 2022)

Is she dead yet?

Victim of human trafficking my arse!


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 22, 2022)

ItStillWontWork said:


> Would you apply this to fascists as well?


Mate I'd hazard that about 1/8 of the British population would welcome fascism with open arms if WWII weren't part of the Great Britain mythos – if we're ever going to improve matters you'd better start believing in the hope of their redemption.


----------



## LDC (Nov 22, 2022)

ItStillWontWork said:


> Would you apply this to fascists as well?



_Absolutely of course. _Pretty much anyone who admits that they made mistakes and have genuinely changed their mind. Although that doesn't mean it has to be a personalised 'forgiveness' by the people their activity and attitudes have directly harmed of course, but on a societal level it's essential.

To have any other position is an admission that no better world is possible, and is the position of morally absolutist teenagers and political ideologues.


----------



## Athos (Nov 22, 2022)

LDC said:


> _... _anyone who admits that they made mistakes and have genuinely changed their mind.


What about people who (eventually) purport to have changed their mind only after they've been captured, and are detained in circumstances where they have an overwhelming motive to say whatever it takes (whether or not it's true), and where the genuineness of their supposed conversion can't really be tested?


----------



## LDC (Nov 22, 2022)

Athos said:


> What about people who (eventually) purport to have changed their mind only after they've been captured, and are detained in circumstances where they have an overwhelming motive to say whatever it takes (whether or not it's true), and where the genuineness of their supposed conversion can't really be tested?



Yeah, as have said I think that's really complicated, I was more addressing the point generally rather than specifically.


----------



## Athos (Nov 22, 2022)

LDC said:


> Yeah, as have said I think that's really complicated, I was more addressing the point generally rather than specifically.


Of course people should be rehabilitated if we can be sure of their ideological coversion; because they are no longer a risk, and because of what they can tell us.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 22, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Mate I'd hazard that about 1/8 of the British population would welcome fascism with open arms if WWII weren't part of the Great Britain mythos – if we're ever going to improve matters you'd better start believing in the hope of their redemption.


I wonder if Griffin had been involved in activities abroad that involved female enslavement for sexual purposes amongst other horrors whether you'd be making calls for redemption or not.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I wonder if Griffin had been involved in activities abroad that involved female enslavement for sexual purposes amongst other horrors whether you'd be making calls for redemption or not.



'Involved in' as in responsible for or victim of?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 22, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I wonder if Griffin had been involved in activities abroad that involved female enslavement for sexual purposes amongst other horrors whether you'd be making calls for redemption or not.


Redeem him with extreme prejudice


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 22, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Involved in' as in responsible for or victim of?


Ah, I see you've already made judgements on both.


----------



## Athos (Nov 22, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> 'Involved in' as in responsible for or victim of?


What if his supporters said he was a 'victim of'?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2022)

Athos said:


> What if his supporters said he was a 'victim of'?



Well then they'd be wrong. 

And I don't think Begum has any 'supporters' anyway, so your otherwise fascinating thought experiment doesn't really have much bearing on anything.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 22, 2022)

Athos said:


> What about people who (eventually) purport to have changed their mind only after they've been captured, and are detained in circumstances where they have an overwhelming motive to say whatever it takes (whether or not it's true), and where the genuineness of their supposed conversion can't really be tested?



Perhaps they could face some sort of due process? And perhaps that should happen in their country of birth and the country that failed to adequately safeguard them in the first place, as that would seem to fit with the notion of 'taking responsibility' on which the concept of retributive justice is predicated.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 22, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Perhaps they could face some sort of due process? And perhaps that should happen in their country of birth and the country that failed to adequately safeguard them in the first place, as that would seem to fit with the notion of 'taking responsibility' on which the concept of retributive justice is predicated.


If you're a victim of a crime abroad then you would at first try to engage with an embassy there for support. Of course, this becomes more difficult if the country isn't recognised so has no embassy and the crime you are a victim of looks like for all intents and purposes you were actively involved in. Not excluding being in a conflict against the very nation you now desire to protect you.


----------



## Athos (Nov 22, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Perhaps they could face some sort of due process? And perhaps that should happen in their country of birth and the country that failed to adequately safeguard them in the first place, as that would seem to fit with the notion of 'taking responsibility' on which the concept of retributive justice is predicated.



I agree they should be subject to a fair process.


----------



## tim (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> What about people who (eventually) purport to have changed their mind only after they've been captured, and are detained in circumstances where they have an overwhelming motive to say whatever it takes (whether or not it's true), and where the genuineness of their supposed conversion can't really be tested?



More specifically a child who was groomed and trafficked rather than just a person.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

tim said:


> More specifically a child who was groomed and trafficked rather than just a person.


Obviously, if there was evidence of that having happened, that'd need to be taken into account when considering that person's culpability and/or continuing threat to the public.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

If she'd been trafficked, that might provide a defence to any criminal charges.  That would mean she'd be free (subject to any potential TPIM Order) if she were to return to the UK.  A fact that, ironically, might count against her in any assessment of the risk she poses to the public.  And it was the latter question, rather than her guilt or innocence of any crimes, that the HS had to decide.  This latest strategy might backfire on her.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> Perhaps they could face some sort of due process? And perhaps that should happen in their country of birth and the country that failed to adequately safeguard them in the first place ….



Don’t be ridiculous. If this were the case every Brit who commits crimes in other countries would argue the same. And how the fuck is the UK to blame for her choosing to travel thousands of miles to join a cult of genocidal rapists? 

Would you afford the same defence to a young lad who travels to America to join a White Supremacist group to assist them in torture, rape and murder?

Of course she should face due process, but in the countries where she’s committed her crimes. In this case, Iraq or Syria.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

tim said:


> More specifically a child who was groomed and trafficked rather than just a person.


Trafficked to me means a person acting under duress as opposed to doing the thing voluntarily.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

She wasn't trafficked, well not initially, at least. She was groomed though. And yes, Spymaster, the same would apply to a young person groomed into white supremacist circles.


----------



## LDC (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Trafficked to me means a person acting under duress as opposed to doing the thing voluntarily.



Whatever it means to you or me is irrelevant though, it has some clear definitions (some legal) and can include being persuaded or tricked for example, rather than anything more obviously forceful.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

LDC said:


> Whatever it means to you or me is irrelevant though, it has some clear definitions (some legal) and can include being persuaded or tricked for example, rather than anything more obviously forceful.


Do we know that she was unaware that the purpose of her trip was marriage?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

The truth is we've got absolutely no idea about the existence of any grooming and/or trafficking, or the extent to which that should be considered to reduce her own culpability for past crimes/any assessment of ongoing risk to the public (nor indeed any of the intelligence about the nature and extent of that risk).

The truth could be anything ranging from: a) her being a poor sap who was groomed and trafficked, hated it when she got there but couldn't leave, has truly recanted such that she is no risk whatsoever, and the HS's decision was a cynical, racist bit of politics; to,  b) her actively seeking out IS because she was and remains ideologically committed to the wicked, barbaric, and murderous regime, in which she participated freely and enthusiastically until she was caught, and the HS's decision is based on rock solid intelligence that she would perpetrate atrocities in the UK if given the chance (the risk of which can't be mitigated in other ways).

Those here on either side asserting one thing or the other are just making stuff up to suit their agenda.

The most anyone here can reasonably do is comment on the morality of the existing law (in principle and practice) generally, and the legality of the decision, based on what's publicly known.

Personally, I have issues with the law insofar as it creates a two-tier citizenship which is wrong in principle and practically counterproductive in the fight against terrorism.  I also think it gives to much power to a politician, with insufficient effective oversight.

I wouldn't be surprised if it had been used for an improper, political purpose rather than in the interests of national security (albeit there insufficient evidence for me to say either way).

But,  as far as I can see (accepting I've not seen all the evidence), there nothing to suggest the HS's decision was unlawful.  That's what the SIAC will have to decide now.

In terms of outcomes, I'd prefer she was tried locally, but, if that can't happen, then I don't think it right that she should languish without due process (even if, technically, that's because of a subsequent decision by Bangladeshi politicians that was illegal under Bangladeshi and international law); in which case she should be brought back to the UK.

However, that might mean accepting greater risk to the British public and/or the introducing of new powers to mitigate that risk - both of which are problematic.


----------



## A380 (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> The truth is we've got absolutely no idea about the existence of any grooming and/or trafficking, or the extent to which that should be considered to reduce her own culpability for past crimes/any assessment of ongoing risk to the public (nor indeed any of the intelligence about the nature and extent of that risk).
> 
> The truth could be anything ranging from: a) her being a poor sap who was groomed and trafficked, hated it when she got there but couldn't leave, has truly recanted such that she is no risk whatsoever, and the HS's decision was a cynical, racist bit of politics; to,  b) her actively seeking out IS because she was and remains ideologically committed to the wicked, barbaric, and murderous regime, in which she participated freely and enthusiastically until she was caught, and the HS's decision is based on rock solid evidence that she would perpetrate atrocities in the UK if given the chance (the risk of which can't be mitigated in other ways).
> 
> ...


There you go with your fucking facts and well reasoned arguments again...


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> And yes, Spymaster, the same would apply to a young person groomed into white supremacist circles.



Cobblers. If this was a far right, male, white-power dude (groomed or otherwise), all the lefty hipocrites would be queuing up to throw him to the wolves, and you know it.


----------



## RedRedRose (Nov 23, 2022)

The first article on her three years ago, made her sound rather unrepentant. She then talks about making her own choice back in 2019 to go to Syria. So what's changed since then?


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cobblers. If this was a far right, male, white-power dude (groomed or otherwise), all the lefty hipocrites would be queuing up to throw him to the wolves, and you know it.


Speaking as an ultra-lefty, I've known one or two people who were NF/BM types when they were teenagers. They turned out all right in the end. Some people change, some people get worse. That's life. I don't know the situation with Begum, whether she's gone against her grooming or whether she continues to be an islamist monster, that remains to be seen. You give the impression that you make your big sweeping statements merely to support your wish to see her hanged by an Iraqi court. Fine, but let's make it clear that that's your focus here.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

RedRedRose said:


> The first article on her three years ago, made her sound rather unrepentant. She then talks about making her own choice back in 2019 to go to Syria. So what's changed since then?


No idea what she says in 2022. I'd be interested to hear if she has changed.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> No idea what she says in 2022. I'd be interested to hear if she has changed.


She's now saying she didn't make a free choice; that she was manipulated by grooming.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

So then, that alleged grooming would have happened in the UK when she was a British citizen, no?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> So then, that alleged grooming would have happened in the UK when she was a British citizen, no?


If it happened, yes she'd have been a British citizen in the UK.  But, even if it did, that wouldn't necessarily render the HS's decision unlawful - a groomed person can still represent a risk to national security.   Essentially, to succeed in this appeal (on that ground - it's one of a few*) she'll have to show that the possibility of grooming was a relevant factor that the HS unreasonably failed to take into account - quite a high bar.

* see para 11 of the attached for a summary of the current grounds.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Interestingly, the Bangladeshis might have painted themselves into a corner.   If the HS's decision is quashed, then, in the eyes of English law, she'll be a dual citizen again.  At that point, if Bangladesh revoked her citizenship, there'd be no question of the UK doing so in the future (as that'd make her stateless).  However, having denied she is a citizen, they can't easily strip her of citizenship.   That would leave a window for the current HS to revoke British citizenship, based on how things stand today.  I wouldn't put it past her.

ETA: Ignore that; she's over 21 so Bangladeshi citizenship would've automatically been revoked if she'd remained a British citizen (i.e. if the deprivation decision was unlawful).  So they couldn't strip her of British citizenship in those grounds, now.   Still wouldn't put it past them to find some other mechanism, though e.g. passport irregularities.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Cobblers. If this was a far right, male, white-power dude (groomed or otherwise), all the lefty hipocrites would be queuing up to throw him to the wolves, and you know it.


You are talking directly to lefties telling you this is not the case. I personally know people who were fascist or fash-adjacent in their youth and changed their minds. There are certainly _some_ lefties knocking around who haven't clocked the need to leave a path open for people to come back from that stuff, but leave wanking on about universals to the Mail eh?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Speaking as an ultra-lefty, I've known one or two people who were NF/BM types when they were teenagers. They turned our all right in the end. Some people change, some people get worse. That's life. I don't know the situation with Begum, whether she's gone against her grooming or whether she continues to be an islamist monster, that remains to be seen. You give the impression that you make your big sweeping statements merely to support your wish to see her hanged by an Iraqi court. Fine, but let's make it clear that that's your focus here.



My focus is not to see her hanged, although I wouldn't lose much sleep if she was. It's to point out the enormous (though totally predictable) double standards coming from "ulra-lefty" types, as you put it. Many posters here are totally convinced that she's a victim, despite the fact that she travelled 3000 miles to join a genocide cult; and that the government's stripping of her citizenship was illegal, which it very clearly wasnt. Change the sex, colour, and probable motivations and I promise you, this thread would look very different. There's also a huge arrogance in the notion that only a British court could deliver justice. Why? The crimes of the organisation that she joined were primarily committed in Syria and Iraq, where she was ultimately detained. If I was arrested for the murder of a French citizen in France, would you argue that I should be sent back to London to face British justice?

She may have been coerced into joining IS. She also may have wholeheartedly sought to join them and involve herself in their pogrom.


----------



## A380 (Nov 23, 2022)

RedRedRose said:


> The first article on her three years ago, made her sound rather unrepentant. ... So what's changed since then?




Better lawyer, advised to hire PR company, probably by that better lawyer…


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> My focus is not to see her hanged, although I wouldn't lose much sleep if she was. It's to point out the enormous (though totally predictable) double standards coming from "ulra-lefty" types, as you put it. Many posters here are totally convinced that she's a victim, despite the fact that she travelled 3000 miles to join a genocide cult; and that the government's stripping of her citizenship was illegal, which it very clearly wasnt. Change the sex, colour, and probable motivations and I promise you, this thread would look very different. There's also a huge arrogance in the notion that only a British court could deliver justice. Why? The crimes of the organisation that she joined were primarily committed in Syria and Iraq, where she was ultimately detained. If I was arrested for the murder of a French citizen in France, would you argue that I should be sent back to London to face British justice?
> 
> She may have been coerced into joining IS. She also may have wholeheartedly sought to join them and involve herself in their pogrom.


I agree with you on 'British justice' point (subjext to the caveat that somebody needs to deliver justice - she can't stay in limbo), and that people are just making shit up about her being a victim (versus willing participant) with no real clue what happened.

And I suspect there's some truth in the double standards point; I doubt a white male who joined a fascist group would've attracted the same sympathy and support.

As things stand, it appears the decision was lawful - at least the _de jure_ statelesness point appears to be without merit - but it's not all over yet. The decision could still be quashed; though I suspect they'd keep her out some other way.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> My focus is not to see her hanged, although I wouldn't lose much sleep if she was. It's to point out the enormous (though totally predictable) double standards coming from "ulra-lefty" types, as you put it.


You are signally failing to show how double standards are being applied.



> Many posters here are totally convinced that she's a victim, despite the fact that she travelled 3000 miles to join a genocide cult; and that the government's stripping of her citizenship was illegal, which it very clearly wasnt.


Alternatively you could say "Many posters here think she was groomed aged 15 by a death cult and persuaded to get on a plane. When she later became disillusioned, publicly rejected the death cult and asked to come back, the government used a loophole of her technically being Bangladeshi (even though she'd never even visited the country) to strip her of a lifelong citizenship in her country of origin. Which might or might not be legal, but was definitely an immoral consequence of a local moral panic."

All about framing, really, isn't it.



> Change the sex, colour, and probable motivations and I promise you, this thread would look very different.


Back it up or stop presenting your suppositions as facts, please.



> There's also a huge arrogance in the notion that only a British court could deliver justice.


Genuine question, what other court is proposing to give her a hearing?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 23, 2022)

Honest Q - if she jumped ship at 15, how long had she been involved in the death cult loons before that ?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Alternatively you could say "Many posters here think she was groomed aged 15 by a death cult and persuaded to get on a plane. When she later became disillusioned, publicly rejected the death cult and asked to come back, the government used a legal loophole of her technically being Bangladeshi (even though she'd never even visited the country) to strip her of a lifelong citizenship in her country of origin. Which might or might not be legal, but was definitely an immoral consequence of a local moral panic."


Leaving aside the absence of any evidence that she was persuaded to do anything, and the fact that her purported disillusionment seemed to coincide with her capture, I'm not sure how you can assert that the HS's use of this legal tool/'loophole' was "definitely an immoral consequence of a local moral panic".  For all you (or any of us) know, it might have been informed entirely by proper consideration of relevant intelligence, the content of which we know nothing about.  You may be right, but, at the moment, it's pure speculation.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Back it up or stop presenting your suppositions as facts, please.



Have you actually read this thread?



> Genuine question, what other court is proposing to give her a hearing?



Iraq. The French have allowed their citizens in similar circumstances to be tried there.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Have you actually read this thread?


Yes. Please point to where these hypocritical lefties declared an unwillingness to consider the cases of repentant former white male fascists who had been groomed at a young age.



Spymaster said:


> Iraq. The French have allowed their citizens in similar circumstances to be tried there.


Has Iraq shown any interest in doing so?



> their citizens


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Yes. Please point to where these hypocritical lefties declared an unwillingness to consider the cases of repentant former white male fascists who had been groomed at a young age.
> 
> 
> Has Iraq shown any interest in doing so?



So you _haven't_ read this thread. Iraq offered to try all ISIS captives 2 or 3 years ago. It's how the French and other nations have dealt with the problem. 

There's also the prospect of her being tried in Syria (Kurdish controlled Rojava) which she is fighting against.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> So you _haven't_ read this thread.


It's 177 pages over a three year period, I've read a fair chunk and subsequently forgotten a good part of it. So I was actually asking in good faith there, try not to get snippy about that simply because you tried to make a point about leftie hypocrisy that you can't back up.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)




----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

You're falling back on me calling lefties hypocrites because your lack of knowledge of this subject has been exposed


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

If you feel you can't ask for a clarification about a thing in the middle of a conversation because it'd "expose your lack of knowledge" I feel deeply sorry for you. But as you well know, I'm not "falling back" on anything because my opening post was specifically about you calling lefties hypocrites, and the ask about courts was the aside.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Whatever


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> My focus is not to see her hanged, although I wouldn't lose much sleep if she was. *It's to point out the enormous (though totally predictable) double standards coming from "ulra-lefty" types*, as you put it. Many posters here are totally convinced that she's a victim, despite the fact that she travelled 3000 miles to join a genocide cult; and that the government's stripping of her citizenship was illegal, which it very clearly wasnt. Change the sex, colour, and probable motivations and I promise you, this thread would look very different. There's also a huge arrogance in the notion that only a British court could deliver justice. Why? The crimes of the organisation that she joined were primarily committed in Syria and Iraq, where she was ultimately detained. If I was arrested for the murder of a French citizen in France, would you argue that I should be sent back to London to face British justice?
> 
> She may have been coerced into joining IS. She also may have wholeheartedly sought to join them and involve herself in their pogrom.


So, whataboutery then.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> If it happened, yes she'd have been a British citizen in the UK.  But, even if it did, that wouldn't necessarily render the HS's decision unlawful - a groomed person can still represent a risk to national security.   Essentially, to succeed in this appeal (on that ground - it's one of a few*) she'll have to show that the possibility of grooming was a relevant factor that the HS unreasonably failed to take into account - quite a high bar.
> 
> * see para 11 of the attached for a summary of the current grounds.


Indeed. But surely that would need to be decided in a British Court, with legal defence, etc.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Indeed. But surely that would need to be decided in a British Court, with legal defence, etc.


Yes. It's being heard (literally as we speak) in the SIAC, where she's legally represented.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> So, whataboutery then.



Well I guess so, if you want to highlight one sentence rather than engaging with the other six!


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

Yes, I know there's leftish hypocrisy on this. Most of the rest of your post revolves around that. Is the hypocrisy of some people on the left the main issue here for you? If yes, that's a bit sad.


----------



## A380 (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Indeed. But surely that would need to be decided in a British Court, with legal defence, etc.


What, like the current SIAC hearing sitting at the moment?


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 23, 2022)

Anyway, we are not armed with the background here are we ?  We know she left at 15, her father appears to have reported her activities to the popo and school beforehand. How nuch earlier I don’t know. We have no idea when she fell for the lure of IS. Surely this is rather important- if she had been at it for say 18 months, then she would have 13 or 14 . Not the assured grown up that seems to be the meme of the minute.

Meh


----------



## not-bono-ever (Nov 23, 2022)

/ lefty hand wringer


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Is the hypocrisy of some people on the left the main issue here for you?



Far from it. I mentioned it in passing. It's Rob Ray pursuing it.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Far from it. I mentioned it in passing. It's Rob Ray pursuing it.


I merely asked you to justify a generalisation, which you've been unable to do.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> I merely asked you to justify a generalisation, which you've been unable to do.



Don't be stupid. This entire thread is evidence. I just can't be arsed with you.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Shouldn't be difficult to point to where these hypocritical lefties declared an unwillingness to consider the cases of repentant former white male fascists who had been groomed at a young age, then, should it.

I mean fuck Spymaster how hard is it just to agree maybe not all lefties are a Daily Mail stereotype, are you really that insecure/dogmatic you can't admit you made a silly generalisation? Did you really need to sneer and dissemble across 2+ pages  of forum thread instead?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

There’s been many threads of neo-nazis being jailed for their activities and I can’t remember one where there was any talk of redemption/rehabilitation or similar.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

This was in the news fairly recently so presumably we should be able to find discussions of a similar nature with similar sentiments as afforded Begum.





__





						Youngest British terrorist sentenced for neo-Nazi manuals stash | The Crown Prosecution Service
					






					www.cps.gov.uk


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This was in the news fairly recently so presumably we should be able to find discussions of a similar nature with similar sentiments as afforded Begum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not seeing a withdrawal of citizenship there


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

There's no example of a white boy losing his British citizenship for joining a fascist group, so there won't be direct evidence either way.  At most, people can speculate, based on their experience of this place, including the sympathy this particular (islamo)fascist has received versus the usual aproach to more 'traditional' fascists.  But it's a moot/non point in the scheme of things.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This was in the news fairly recently so presumably we should be able to find discussions of a similar nature with similar sentiments as afforded Begum.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do think his age means he should receive a different punishment to an adult and that it should be treated as a safeguarding issue (ie. what level of adult involvement was there in his behaviour and did adult behaviour put him in danger) as well as a criminal one. But no trafficking and no forced marriage so not sure how comparable it really is.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

> At most, people can speculate


Yes, because in fact it's not an example of people on here enthusiastically calling for someone to be permanently denied citizenship and any chance of rehabilitation, is it. And fwiw, I absolutely think a 13-year-old moron shouldn't be followed round his whole life on that stuff if he's renounced fascism and gets on with things - hell I knew at least two "nazi" edgelords when I was a teenager, one's now a pub landlord and the other ended up in the diplomatic service, both are reasonably decent people. But please, do carry on about ULTra-LEfTiE DoubLE STANdARds.

Seriously the idea that people can change given the right circumstances is anarchism (and socialism) 101, people who don't think that wouldn't be hypocrites so much as they'd be ideologically off piste. Calling _that_ out I'd have no problem with – people often forget or betray principles in the moment – but talking about it as being a standard left hypocrisy is incoherent nonsense.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Not seeing a withdrawal of citizenship there



Not even mentioned in the post I was replying to. 



Rob Ray said:


> Shouldn't be difficult to point to where these hypocritical lefties declared an unwillingness to consider the cases of repentant former white male fascists who had been groomed at a young age, then, should it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> I do think his age means he should receive a different punishment to an adult and that it should be treated as a safeguarding issue (ie. what level of adult involvement was there in his behaviour and did adult behaviour put him in danger) as well as a criminal one. But no trafficking and no forced marriage so not sure how comparable it really is.



Rob Ray was asking for specific examples that don't exist because, err, well I'm not sure. It wasn't stipulated that the circumstances had to be identical.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Not even mentioned in the post I was replying to.


How very strange


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Yes, because in fact it's not an example of people on here enthusiastically calling for someone to be permanently denied citizenship and any chance of rehabilitation, is it. And fwiw, I absolutely think a 13-year-old moron shouldn't be followed round his whole life on that stuff if he's renounced fascism and gets on with things - hell I knew at least two "nazi" edgelords when I was a teenager, one's a pub landlord and the other ended up in the diplomatic service, both are reasonably decent people. But please, do carry on about ULTra-LEfTiE DoubLE STANdARds.


You quoted (part of) my words (whilst removing my name), then implied I've been talking about "ULTra-LEfTiE DoubLE STANdARds", when I've not made any such claims (that was Spymaster).


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Cba


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> How very strange


Underage, possibly groomed was the relevance. I find it unlikely that we'll find an underage white male 'trafficked' abroad to be a baby machine for a fascist org.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> That's because I'm not terribly interested in what you have to say and was not aiming the broader response at you.


Probably your best bet.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

The only bit that is actually interesting (i reckon) is the withdrawal of citizenship, is the trial actually about defining the situations in which that is fine and when its not? 

eta 
Looks like the idea is that if she is "a security threat" then it was fine to take away her citizenship so they are arguing about whether or not she in particular is .
 But i want to know how they define threat, what exactly are the criteria for getting yr citizenship revoked who gets to define whether you are a threat or not.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Underage, possibly groomed was the relevance. I find it unlikely that we'll find an underage white male 'trafficked' abroad to be a baby machine for a fascist org.


Before speculating how a hypothetical comparator victim of trafficking might be treated, it'd be interesting to hear a shred of evidence that she was in fact trafficked (and what people mean by that term).


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> The only bit that is actually interesting (i reckon) is the withdrawal of citizenship, is the trial actually about defining the situations in which that is fine and when its not?


The current SIAC hearing is only about that.  It's an appeal against the then HS's deprivation decision.  But, because that decision is essentially a matter of discretion, it's unlikely to be prescriptive e.g. say in x factual circumstances you can or can't do y, so much as set out the sorts of things the HS should take into account.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> I do think his age means he should receive a different punishment to an adult and that it should be treated as a safeguarding issue (ie. what level of adult involvement was there in his behaviour and did adult behaviour put him in danger) as well as a criminal one. But no trafficking and no forced marriage so not sure how comparable it really is.



I'm not sure that either trafficking or forced marriage come into it - trafficking requires some element of either coercion or false advertising, and neither of them seem to be in place, and forced marriage means she didn't get a choice - but the offer, when she was signing up for IS and stealing her sisters passport in order to get on the plane, was 'come to the Caliphate, we'll give you a husband and some slaves, and you can make lots of babies' - if she didn't want to get married to some allocated, but random bloke, she wouldn't have got on the plane...

For me the only issue she has in mitigation is that of grooming - the degree, or indeed existence of it, neither I, nor anyone else on this board, really knows. The recruitment process, almost by definition, contains _some_ elements of grooming, but that doesn't mean she didn't seek them out, or that she needed any persuasion, or that she was groomed into doing things she didn't want to do.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

kebabking said:


> forced marriage means she didn't get a choice


Nope. Foreign travel + underage meets the legal definition.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> Nope. Foreign travel + underage meets the legal definition.


At this point then she is apparently absolved of agency.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> The current SIAC hearing is only about that.  It's an appeal against the then HS's deprivation decision.


But it's all about her, she is on trial (innocent victim or terrorist in waiting) not their definition of a threat & how the deprivation of citizenship decision gets made?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> Nope. Foreign travel + underage meets the legal definition.


Do you have a reference for that?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> But it's all about her, she is on trial (innocent victim or terrorist in waiting) not their definition of a threat & how the deprivation of citizenship decision gets made?


No, she's not on trial; she's bringing the case - an appeal against the HS's decision.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> No, she's not on trial; she's bringing the case - an appeal against the HS's decision.


Yep but the focus is her, what she was thinking when she was 15, whether she is a victim or a baddie, etc, and not on them the people who revoked her citizenship and their process, so its not likely to result in a useful case law / more explicit general rule about when citizenship can be revoked and when it can't?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Underage, possibly groomed was the relevance. I find it unlikely that we'll find an underage white male 'trafficked' abroad to be a baby machine for a fascist org.


I thought part of the aim your post was to contrast the very different outcomes


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

It's the fact that this particular punishment / sanction is only available to use on people who happen to have, or have potential access in law due to an accident of birth, to another citizenship, that is the thing. There just should not be punishments that can only be used on this one subsection of british citizens imo, how exactly do you justify that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> I thought part of the aim your post was to contrast the very different outcomes


We were discussing the leniency and understanding of posters afforded to fascists of differing race/sex I thought.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> At this point then she is apparently absolved of agency.


I haven't said or implied that. But if we were talking about 15 year olds trafficked to Amsterdam to work in brothels would we be so concerned about their agency?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> Yep but the focus is her, what she was thinking when she was 15, whether she is a victim or a baddie, etc, and not on them the people who revoked her citizenship and their process, so its not likely to result in a useful case law / more explicit general rule about when citizenship can be revoked and when it can't?


The focus (largely speculation) on these boards might be her; but the focus of the current proceedings will be on the HS's decision making.  And that will be primarily procedural e.g. did he consider the right factors, rather than whether the court would have decided differently on this facts (unless the decision in light of those facts was so unreasonable that no reasonable HS could have made it).  The purpose isn't to set out how a HS should decide on any given set of facts; Parliament has deliberately given a wide discretion on that point.


----------



## philosophical (Nov 23, 2022)

I reckon if she ever ended up on trial in a court somewhere, for her it wouldn’t be the usual trope of innocent until proven guilty so much as guilty until proven innocent.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> It's the fact that this particular punishment / sanction is only available to use on people who happen to have, or have potential access in law due to an accident of birth, to another citizenship, that is the thing. There just should not be punishments that can only be used on this one subsection of british citizens imo, how exactly do you justify that.



Yes, it's problematic.  Those who defend it do so on the basis of pragmatic steps for public security/national security.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Parliament has deliberately given a wide discretion on that point.


Yep. I think that is abysmal and it should be wiped off the big books of laws, the whole idea of revoking citizenship. But I see that it isn't what's on trial so will bugger off.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> I haven't said or implied that. But if we were talking about 15 year olds trafficked to Amsterdam to work in brothels would we be so concerned about their agency?


You think her experience of marrying a Jihadi, having several children with them, and being unrepentant about it until a return to the Nation she was at war with seemed preferable to a desert refugee camp is comparable with forced prostitution?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> Yep. I think that is abysmal and it should be wiped off the big books of laws, the whole idea of revoking citizenship. But I see that it isn't what's on trial so will bugger off.


If that way of mitigating the risks posed by dangerous dual nationals is removed it will mean either exposing the public to more risk, and/or other (likely draconian) powers to mitigate risk.  Those are also less than ideal.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You think her experience of marrying a Jihadi, having several children with them, and being unrepentant about it until a return to the Nation she was at war with seemed preferable to a desert refugee camp is comparable with forced prostitution?


I think being trafficked abroad aged 15 to be married off to an adult is comparable, yes. But I know a lot of fifteen year olds and safeguarding is part of my job.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> If that way of mitigating the risks posed by dangerous dual nationals is removed it will mean either exposing the public to more risk, and/or other powers to mitigate risk.  Those are also less than ideal.


What about, treat all risks posed by your homegrown terrorists and general criminals the same, regardless of whether by accident of birth you think they might be shunted off elsewhere. 
More expensive but obviously the ethically correct path. If the courts think she needs locking up until she's old and dead then fine, but removal of citizenship is a pathetic ruse and just a money saving exercise ultimately, which these trials probably wipe even that off from the plus side.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> I think being trafficked abroad aged 15 to be married off to an adult is comparable, yes. But I know a lot of fifteen year olds and safeguarding is part of my job.


What's your definition of 'trafficked'? And what's the evidence that it happened to her?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> I think being trafficked abroad aged 15 to be married off to an adult is comparable, yes. But I know a lot of fifteen year olds and safeguarding is part of my job.


Fair point. Although she's yet to complain about this aspect. Unlike other victims of forced marriage.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> What about, treat all risks posed by your homegrown terrorists the same whether or not they by accident of birth might be shunted off elsewhere.


That's one approach.  But it'd mean a reduction in the power to deal with some of them.  Which necessarily means a risk to the public.  Whether or not that risk is one we should run in the name of ensuring parity between dual and sole citizens suspected of being extremely dangerous is worthy of discussion.  But we should be clear what it means.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> That's one approach.  But it'd mean a reduction in the power to deal with some of them.  Which necessarily means a risk to the public.  Whether or not that risk is one we should run in the name of ensuring parity between dual and sole citizens suspected of being extremely dangerous is worthy of discussion.  But we should be clear what it means.


It's a shameful stance imo, if she's a massive danger then lock her up until she's dead.
If we can't do that then we have a different problem with our legal or law enforcement system.
But it's not Bangladesh's problem it's very obviously ours.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Fair point. Although she's yet to complain about this aspect. Unlike other victims of forced marriage.


Complaints of child abuse very rarely come from the victim in the first instance.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> Complaints of child abuse very rarely come from the victim in the first instance.


This is just ABC picking stuff to suit your argument. If she hasn't complained then that must obviously mean she is unable to. As opposed to having no complaint.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This is just ABC picking stuff to suit your argument. If she hasn't complained then that must obviously mean she is unable to. As opposed to having no complaint.


So fucking a fifteen year old is no longer child abuse?


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> So fucking a fifteen year old is no longer child abuse?


I don't think our age of consent laws extend to the caliphate.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> So fucking a fifteen year old is no longer child abuse?


Did they fuck before she turned sixteen? You seem to know more than most how this all panned out.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> It's a shameful stance imo, if she's a massive danger then lock her up until she's dead, if we can't do that then we have a different problem with our legal system.
> But it's not bangladesh's problem it's ours.


It's not quite that simple. For instance there are instances where things are known to police/ security services, but can't be put in evidence in criminal proceedings e.g. telephone intercepts.

If the state had overheard a call in which a dual national said he intended to bomb Wembley, the only effective way to prevent that might be to deprive them of citizenship.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> It's not quite that simple. For instance there are instances where things are known to police/ security services, but can't be put in evidence in criminal proceedings e.g. telephone intercepts.
> 
> If the state had overheard a call in which a dual national said he intended to bomb Wembley, the only effective way to prevent that might be to deprive them of citizenship.


No it wouldn't, surely? If so then that needs fixing.
Is pre -emptive deprival of citizenship a thing or have you just made that up?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> No it wouldnt.


How so?


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> How so?


Have you just made up a scenario in which people can be pre-emptively deprived of their british citizenship because 'we' think they are a threat?

But if we have no other way of dealing with intercepted calls where someone says they plan to blow up Wembley stadium next week, that needs fixing doesn't it. That sounds bad. Sounds like a problem that needs fixing not just for those with potential dual citizenship but for all our aspiring terrorists.


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Did they fuck before she turned sixteen? You seem to know more than most how this all panned out.


She was fifteen and a half when she left the UK and was married ten days later. Are you suggesting he might have waited till she was 16?


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> Have you just made up a scenario in which people can be pre-emptively deprived of their british citizenship because 'we' think they are a threat?


I don't bother with him anymore. Not an honest interlocutor.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> No it wouldn't, surely? If so then that needs fixing.
> Is pre -emptive deprival of citizenship a thing or have you just made that up?


Yes, in an ideal world it'd be possible to prevent terrorism without powers that might lead to injustice.  But, in reality, there'll always be a trade-off between e.g. security and freedom.

It's a thing if by 'pre-emptive' you mean absent any criminal conviction. It can be based on intelligence


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Age of consent thing is a total red herring, and weirdly colonial tbh. Which other of our laws do you think applied in that completely other world she lived in.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> She was fifteen and a half when she left the UK and was married ten days later. Are you suggesting he might have waited till she was 16?


How do I honestly know, or you for that matter? But given of all the interviews she's given she hasn't expressed being a victim of trafficking*, even as a now adult, it's odd that internet ideologues are claiming the contrary.

*I mean by ISIS. Not the Canadian spy development.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> I don't bother with him anymore. Not an honest interlocutor.


Lol.  The real reason is you get your arse handed to you every time you do.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yes, in an ideal world it'd be possible to prevent terrorism without powers that might lead to injustice.  But, in reality, there'll always be a trade-off between e.g. security and freedom.
> 
> It's a thing if by 'pre-emptive' you mean absent any criminal conviction. It can be based on intelligence


But has it ever happened that you know of? Or are you just imagining how it could be useful to do it.
Someone having their british citizenship removed and being fucked off to some random place they've never been to, not because they've done anything but because 'we' think they may be a danger to national security?
That sounds like a very bad idea tbh, though one which certain people would love.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> Have you just made up a scenario in which people can be pre-emptively deprived of their british citizenship because 'we' think they are a threat?
> 
> But if we have no other way of dealing with intercepted calls where someone says they plan to blow up Wembley stadium next week, that needs fixing doesn't it. That sounds bad. Sounds like a problem that needs fixing not just for those with potential dual citizenship but for all our aspiring terrorists.


There is no easy fix. That's the point.   And for e.g. covert human intelligence sources, where to rely on their evidence in criminal precedings would reveal their existence, which might put them at risk and close of a source of intel that saves lives.  It's fine to say scrap some of those laws/powers, but we need to be honest about what that might mean.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s been many threads of neo-nazis being jailed for their activities and I can’t remember one where there was any talk of redemption/rehabilitation or similar.


I seem to remember one where it was decided in court that a nazi terrorist to be should read one of the Bronte sisters' books, and some posters thought it was a pretty good idea coz we need to find alternatives to retributive justice.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> There is no easy fix. That's the point.   And for e.g. covert human intelligence sources, where to rely on their evidence in criminal precedings would reveal their existence, which might put them at risk and close of a source of intel that saves lives.  It's fine to say scrap some of those laws/powers, but we need to be honest about what that might mean.


I think its quite simple tbh. If your system is not up to dealing with home grown terrorists you need to fix it, not just hope you can shunt a handful of them to bangladesh.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> But has it ever happened that you know of? Or are you just imagining how it could be useful to do it.
> Someone having their british citizenship removed not because they've done anything but because 'we' think they may be a danger to national security?
> That sounds like a very bad idea tbh, though one which certain people would love.


Depends by what you mean "anything they've done."  But, yes, there have been dual citizens deprived of their British citizenship without being convicted of a crime.   Begum for one!

And it's not what "we" think; it's the HS.  That's part of the danger of it; a decision made by a politician, with wide discretion and limited oversight, is ripe for abuse.


----------



## _Russ_ (Nov 23, 2022)

Have we let her back in yet?


----------



## _Russ_ (Nov 23, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I seem to remember one where it was decided in court that a nazi terrorist to be should read one of the Bronte sisters' books, and some posters thought it was a pretty good idea coz we need to find alternatives to retributive justice.


Did it work?, I mean did the Nazi Terrorist go on to repent his ways and not re-offend?


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> I think its quite simple tbh. If your system is not up to dealing with home grown terrorists you need to fix it, not just hope you can shunt a handful of them to bangladesh.


Of course, that would be ideal, if possible.

But, if not stripping British citizenship, how would you deal with a dual citizen where an agent embedded in a terrorist group reveals he's planning an atrocity on UK soil (but you don't know exactly when and where), in circumstances where a criminal prosecution would be impossible without the agent's evidence, but where a trial would reveal his existence, putting him at risk and closing of vital intel?  What laws/powers would you change?


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Of course, that would be ideal, if possible.
> 
> But, if not stripping British citizenship, how would you deal with a dual citizen where an agent embedded in a terrorist group reveals he's planning an atrocity on UK soil (but you don't know exactly when and where), in circumstances where a criminal prosecution would be impossible without the agent's evidence, but where a trial would reveal his existence, putting him at risk and closing of vital intel?  What laws/powers would you change?


What would happen if that terrorist person were not a dual citizen, would they just have to be left go ahead and get on with it and do their atrocity?
Is that the situation we are in, we can only stop the dual citizens? Bollocks.

eta it seems that American citizens can only be deprived of their citizenship in very specific situations, and ONLY if they are 'naturalised' citizens, not born there. How are we justifying this different approach? By saying our criminal justice system is a bit crap so any lever will do needs must?


----------



## kebabking (Nov 23, 2022)

You'll forgive me, I don't think we need to _justify_ doing things differently to the US...


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> What would happen if that terrorist person were not a dual citizen, would they just have to be left go ahead and get on with it and do their atrocity?
> Is that the situation we are in, we can only stop the dual citizens? Bollocks.


The police and security services would continue to try to prevent him.  But it would be much harder than if he could be kept out of the country (and it would divert resources from other terrorist suspects).

Given enough of these people over a long enough period, and the need for them to get lucky once versus the state's need to get it right every day, the likelihood is that the removal of the power would eventually lead to a successful attack.

As a society, we need to decide whether that's a price worth paying to ensure that dual national terrorist suspects are treated 'fairly' i.e. the same as sole nationals.

Personally, I think there's some strong arguments - moral and pragmatic -  that we should.

The reason I'm playing devil's advocate is to make the point that it's not as obvious a decision as it might initially appear, and not without some risk/cost.

Have a look at some of the decisions here (you're looking for substantive judgements in deprivation cases).



			Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - Outcomes 2007 onwards


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> eta it seems that American citizens can only be deprived of their citizenship in very specific situations, and ONLY if they are 'naturalised' citizens, not born there. How are we justifying this different approach? By saying our criminal justice system is a bit crap so any lever will do needs must?


They have the option of slinging people in Gitmo. And far fewer checks and balances on police powers in criminal investigations.  They just put the security/safety trade off in a different place. For all the faults of our current system, we have far more protections.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> There’s been many threads of neo-nazis being jailed for their activities and I can’t remember one where there was any talk of redemption/rehabilitation or similar.


Probably because they were still unreconstitued neo nazis? I don't know of any mentioned on threads here who have denounced their former ideology. Maybe you've seen some?


----------



## kebabking (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Probably because they were still unreconstitued neo nazis? I don't know of any mentioned on threads here who have denounced their former ideology. Maybe you've seen some?



Perhaps the that's chasing the wrong analogy/comparison: Germany in 1945 might be better, and like the IS people, only brought about by the the territorial/military defeat of their society?

Lots of repentance, lots of 'i didn't know...' - depends on how much you believe them, and whether you think they were just parroting a line in order to avoid the noose...


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Shouldn't be difficult to point to where these hypocritical lefties declared an unwillingness to consider the cases of repentant former white male fascists who had been groomed at a young age, then, should it.
> 
> I mean fuck Spymaster how hard is it just to agree maybe not all lefties are a Daily Mail stereotype, are you really that insecure/dogmatic you can't admit you made a silly generalisation? Did you really need to sneer and dissemble across 2+ pages  of forum thread instead?



Oh shut up, you tit.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Probably because they were still unreconstitued neo nazis? I don't know of any mentioned on threads here who have denounced their former ideology. Maybe you've seen some?


Has Begum denounced theirs? Or before having a desperate motivation for doing so?


----------



## Riklet (Nov 23, 2022)

There's a prison cell in Rojava just crying out for her.

Probably a lot better than that shitty camp anyway tbf. she's daft not to go.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Riklet said:


> There's a prison cell in Rojava just crying out for her.
> 
> Probably a lot better than that shitty camp anyway tbf. she's daft not to go.


And they've done away with the death penalty. Though, ironically, I suspect that's part of her motive for not doing so - the idea that her life is at risk in the camp is one argument in favour of letting her come back to the UK.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

This is one of those subjects where parts of the left show themselves up as being completely out of touch with what the general public think. And it fucking pisses me off. Because for every economic argument you can convince people of they are repelled by this kind of bullshit by folk who would do better keeping their mouths shut.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This is one of those subjects where parts of the left show themselves up as being completely out of touch with what the general public think. And it fucking pisses me off. Because for every economic argument you can convince people of they are repelled by this kind of bullshit by folk who would do better keeping their mouths shut.


do you think what you do because of or despite what the general public think?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> do you think what you do because of or despite what the general public think?


Are they a separate entity?


----------



## maomao (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This is one of those subjects where parts of the left show themselves up as being completely out of touch with what the general public think. And it fucking pisses me off. Because for every economic argument you can convince people of they are repelled by this kind of bullshit by folk who would do better keeping their mouths shut.


I don't think many of the general public read u75. Didn't realise we had to be on best behaviour in case one of them dropped in.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Today's arguments at the hearing were interesting.  Her lawyers said the HS failed to take into account the fact that his decision would make her _de facto_ stateless, arguing that he should have asked Bangladesh how they'd treat her before deciding.  The government's lawyers replied that an obligation to consult with the countries of dual nationals would effectively make the deprivation regime unworkable, since they could frustrate it simply by saying they'd not recognise the individual as a citizen (regardless of their laws).


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - Outcomes 2007 onwards


this is a really good link well found.
It shows the basic idea and the law is that your citizenship can be revoked if _"your presence in the Uk is not deemed conducive to the public good"._
That is just grotesquely broad.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> this is a really good link well found.
> It shows the basic idea and the law is that your citizenship can be revoked if _"your presence in the Uk is not deemed conducive to the public good"._
> That is just grotesquely broad.


Yes, you'd have though that, at the very least, it'd be couched in the more familiar categories of national security, public health, prevention of serious crime etc.  Even as someone who doesn't like the principle, I'd like to see that improvement.  Also, I'd like to see the decision made by a group of politically independent judges.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

'Conducive to the public good' is a ridiculously high & arbitrary bar. Why not chuck out Nigel Farage, he's got a german passport hasn't he.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Today's arguments at the hearing were interesting.  Her lawyers said the HS failed to take into account the fact that his decision would make her _de facto_ stateless, arguing that he should have asked Bangladesh how they'd treat her before deciding.  The government's lawyers replied that an obligation to consult with the countries of dual nationals would effectively make the deprivation regime unworkable, since they could frustrate it simply by saying they'd not recognise the individual as a citizen (regardless of their laws).



Is there a decent summary of today’s proceedings somewhere?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

maomao said:


> I don't think many of the general public read u75. Didn't realise we had to be on best behaviour in case one of them dropped in.


The ideas expressed within are representative of those released to the wild; they don't need to read here to come into contact with it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> 'Conducive to the public good' is a ridiculously high & arbitrary bar. Why not chuck out Nigel Farage, he's got a german passport hasn't he.


Who is this in response to?


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Who is this in response to?


this.
Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - Outcomes 2007 onwards
which explains that that's the law: Do you have dual citizenship? Are you "not conducive to the public good" ? Fuck off then. If you dont have dual citizenship then we will have to deal with you but if you do, bye.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> 'Conducive to the public good' is a ridiculously high & arbitrary bar. Why not chuck out Nigel Farage, he's got a german passport hasn't he.



There is some guidance, but the last category is so wide as to make it virtually _carte blanche_ (subject to the usual limits on the exercise of public powers e.g. reasonableness, procedural fairness).

_55.4.4 “Conduciveness to the Public Good” means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours._

I suppose that, for now at least, the HRA provides some limit to the discretion as a deprivation decision will amount to a _prima facie_ breach of Art 8 right to private life, such that the deprivation must be a proportionate way of achieving the legitimate aims listed therein e.g. national security, health, crime.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Is there a decent summary of today’s proceedings somewhere?


None of which I'm aware (I got my update from someone who was there).


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> There is some guidance, but the last category is so wide as to make it virtually _carte blanche_ (subject to the usual limits on the exercise of public powers).
> 
> _55.4.4 “Conduciveness to the Public Good” means depriving in the public interest on the grounds of involvement in terrorism, espionage, serious organised crime, war crimes or unacceptable behaviours._
> 
> I suppose that, for now at least, the HRA provides some limit to the discretion as a deprivation decision will amount to a _prima facie_ breach of Art 8 right to private life, such that the deprivation must be a proportionate way of achieving the legitimate aims listed therein e.g. national security, health, crime.


I don't care at all about Shamima but this does seem extremely shit:
 "unacceptable behaviours" can get you de-citizened ? Who are the people that write these laws & who gets to use them.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> I don't care at all about Shamima but this does seem extremely shit:
> "unacceptable behaviours" can get you de-citizened ? Who are the people that write these laws & who gets to use them.


Yeah, though the discretion is fettered a bit by HR laws.  And, as far as I know (and putting aside the issue of sufficiency of evidence) it's only been used for significant issues like terrorism and very serious crime, rather than trivial ones.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yeah, though the discretion is fettered a bit by HR laws.  And, as far as I know (and putting aside the issue of sufficiency of evidence) it's only been used for significant issues like terrorism and very serious crime, rather than trivial ones.



This is why I don’t think it’s worth getting worked-up about it. People suggest that it’s a power that could be abused but I asked on here months ago if anyone could come up with a single example of that happening to a non-terrorist and so far nobody has.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> Who are the people that write these laws...


I think this was Tony Blair's government.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This is why I don’t think it’s worth getting worked-up about it. People suggest that it’s a power that could be abused but I asked on here months ago if anyone could come up with a single example of that happening to a non-terrorist and so far nobody has.




Rochdale rapists.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This is why I don’t think it’s worth getting worked-up about it. People suggest that it’s a power that could be abused but I asked on here months ago if anyone could come up with a single example of that happening to a non-terrorist and so far nobody has.


I'm not worked up, I just think its shitty law and ethically shameful for a rich country to be doing this, chucking its problem citizens away for others to deal with. Will be ensuring also that as a dual citizen i don't do any behaviours that the current home secretary might deem 'unacceptable' just to be safe.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This is why I don’t think it’s worth getting worked-up about it. People suggest that it’s a power that could be abused but I asked on here months ago if anyone could come up with a single example of that happening and so far nobody has.


It's been used against nonces.

But, we don't know what we don't know.   The evidence and reasoning isn't usually made public or even made known to the subject (for understandable reasons) so it's hard to assess if it's always been used fairly.  Especially since in many cases those on the receiving end have found it logistically impossible to mount a legal challenge. But you have to accept that leaving it to a politician rather than a court does increase the risk of it being used for political gain rather than in proper grounds.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Today's arguments at the hearing were interesting.  Her lawyers said the HS failed to take into account the fact that his decision would make her _de facto_ stateless, arguing that he should have asked Bangladesh how they'd treat her before deciding.  The government's lawyers replied that an obligation to consult with the countries of dual nationals would effectively make the deprivation regime unworkable, since they could frustrate it simply by saying they'd not recognise the individual as a citizen (regardless of their laws).




Afaik they are going with the line that has been mooted here too; Bangladesh has vowed to hang her if she sets foot in the country, therefore removing her British citizenship and forcing her to take up her Bangladeshi one is counter to our commitments to the European Council.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> I'm not worked up, I just think its shitty law and ethically shameful for a rich country to be doing this, chucking its problem citizens away for others to deal with. Will be ensuring also that as a dual citizen i don't do any behaviours that the current home secretary might deem 'unacceptable' just to be safe.


You can still do those things; just gotta renounced your other citizenship.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> You can still do those things; just gotta renounced your other citizenship.


exactly! Load of bollocks to have two sets of punishments one for me and one for a true Brit.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Afaik they are going with the line that has been mooted here too; Bangladesh has vowed to hang her if she sets foot in the country, therefore removing her British citizenship and forcing her to take up her Bangladeshi one is counter to our commitments to the European Council.


Not exactly, but near enough to the thrust of it.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> exactly! Load of bollocks to have two sets of punishments one for me and one for a true Brit.


Yeah.  Although, without getting too philosophical, all nationality law is discriminatory, and most of it is arbitrary.  Why are some people criminals for doing something that's lawful elsewhere, purely by an accident of birth?!


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Oh shut up, you tit.


Temper temper.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yeah.  Although, without getting too philosophical, all nationality law is discriminatory, and most of it is arbitrary.  Why are some people criminals for doing something that's lawful elsewhere, purely by an accident of birth?!


well, yes. everything shamima did was fine in the caliphate etc but that’s not the point is it.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 23, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Bangladesh has vowed to hang her if she sets foot in the country,



Have they though? As I recall that idiot diplomat who didn’t know his own country’s citizenship laws just said she wasn’t welcome there, _after_ the UK pulled her passport.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 23, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Have they though? As I recall that idiot diplomat who didn’t know his own country’s citizenship laws just said she wasn’t welcome there, _after_ the UK pulled her passport.




The official government line is that any IS members returning to Bangladesh will hang.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> well, yes. everything shamima did was fine in the caliphate etc but that’s not the point is it.


Well it is and it isn't insofar as people complaining that a difference in outcomes is unfair because it's arbitrary when based on dual citizenship that's not been actively sought are overlooking the fact lots of laws are equally arbitrary, but accepted as fair.  But that's getting a bit off the point. I broadly agree with the point you're making.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Well it is and it isn't insofar as people complaining that a difference in outcomes is unfair because it's arbitrary when based on dual citizenship that's not been actively sought are overlooking the fact lots of laws are equally arbitrary, but accepted as fair.  But that's getting a bit off the point. I broadly agree with the point you're making.


Many laws might be rubbish but some laws are worse than others and this one is definitely a crap one.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> Many laws might be rubbish but some laws are worse than others and this one is definitely a crap one.


Yes.   Though, as discussed, the alternatives aren't unproblematic.


----------



## bimble (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yes.   Though, as discussed, the alternatives aren't unproblematic.


if she’s a giant threat, lock her up until she’s dead. If we can’t do that even if it’s what’s deemed necessary then we need to sort it out. Not outsource it to Bangladesh.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

bimble said:


> if she’s a giant threat, lock her up until she’s dead. If we can’t do that even if it’s what’s deemed necessary then we need to sort it out. Not outsource it to Bangladesh.


As discussed, it's not as simple as just sorting it out, sadly.  Not for future cases, and certainly not to apply to her case retroactively.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 23, 2022)

Mind you, it doesn't help that Britain has let in Jihadists wholesale over the last two decades only for the argument to rest on a teenage girl. State actions aside, it doesn't excuse incoherent anti-fascist positions.


----------



## Riklet (Nov 23, 2022)

It _was_ a stupid decision taking away her British nationality. They should def give it back.. it sets a dodgy precedent. Yes maybe overall the majority of the public agree with the decision made but that doesnt make it a good one!

....once she's British again they she can fuck off and they can get the ball rolling with putting her on trial in Iraq or Kurdistan with some of the other ISIS shitbags.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 23, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> Did it work?, I mean did the Nazi Terrorist go on to repent his ways and not re-offend?


I have no idea but I kinda doubt that it worked. I don't believe in just dismissing all alternatives to retributive justice though and I'm aware that the Spanish anarchists tried to rehabilitate fascists and nationalists during the civil war/revolution - Augustin Souchy wrote about it in With the Peasants of Aragon - a great read.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 23, 2022)

I am not comfortable with her now facing the death penalty


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 23, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> Did it work?, I mean did the Nazi Terrorist go on to repent his ways and not re-offend?


Deeyah Khan, who I mentioned further back in this thread, does seem to have had some success with individual white supremacists/nazis who she spent time with. And maybe with jihadis too for all I know.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I am not comfortable with her now facing the death penalty


Where?


----------



## donkyboy (Nov 23, 2022)

Riklet said:


> It _was_ a stupid decision taking away her British nationality. They should def give it back.. it sets a dodgy precedent. Yes maybe overall the majority of the public agree with the decision made but that doesnt make it a good one!
> 
> ....once she's British again they she can fuck off and they can get the ball rolling with putting her on trial in Iraq or Kurdistan with some of the other ISIS shitbags.



huh? if she gets her citizenship back, next step would be to get her back to the UK. Why would she then be tried in Iraq or Kurdistan? The whole point of regaining citizenship is to be able to return


----------



## Riklet (Nov 23, 2022)

donkyboy said:


> huh? if she gets her citizenship back, next step would be to get her back to the UK. Why would she then be tried in Iraq or Kurdistan? The whole point of regaining citizenship is to be able to return



Not til she's done her time. This is the obvious thing. She might just escape and go back to form otherwise. It makes me sick all this daftness about how she's the real victim here.... a total psycho whose husband used to rape and decapitate people and she was cool with that.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Riklet said:


> Not til she's done her time. This is the obvious thing. She might just escape and go back to form otherwise. It makes me sick all this daftness about how she's the real victim here.... a total psycho whose husband used to rape and decapitate people and she was cool with that.




If she succeeds in her appeal, she'll be pushing to come back to the UK ASAP.


----------



## Riklet (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> If she succeeds in her appeal, she'll be pushing to come back to the UK ASAP.



Fair enough. I am no expert here but arent some British citizens whove been criminals abroad prevented from returning? Nonces etc? Or is it just while youre banged up?

It's sickening the evasion of responsibility various governments have shown to dealing with the isis wags and stragglers mob. Guaranteed theyll be breaking out of Azkaban in the next few years though if things go tits up in Rojava (looking likely with Turkey on the warpath).


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

Riklet said:


> Fair enough. I am no expert here but arent some British citizens whove been criminals abroad prevented from returning? Nonces etc? Or is it just while youre banged up?
> 
> It's sickening the evasion of responsibility various governments have shown to dealing with the isis wags and stragglers mob. Guaranteed theyll be breaking out of Azkaban in the next few years though if things go tits up in Rojava (looking likely with Turkey on the warpath).



The UK can't prevent its own citizens from entering the UK.  That's the whole reason they stripped her of her British citizenship.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 23, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I am not comfortable with her now facing the death penalty



You should petition the Bangladeshi government.


----------



## tim (Nov 23, 2022)

Athos said:


> There's no example of a white boy losing his British citizenship for joining a fascist group, so there won't be direct evidence either way.  At most, people can speculate, based on their experience of this place, including the sympathy this particular (islamo)fascist has received versus the usual aproach to more 'traditional' fascists.  But it's a moot/non point in the scheme of things.




Anyone born on the island of Ireland is automatically an Irish citizen under the constitution of the Irish Republic. I have never heard of any Loyalist terrorists or sympathisers having their British citizenship revoked  with the justification that they already have Irish Citizenship.


----------



## Athos (Nov 23, 2022)

tim said:


> Anyone born on the island of Ireland is automatically an Irish citizen under the constitution of the Irish Republic. I have never heard of any Loyalist terrorists or sympathisers having their British citizenship revoked  with the justification that they already have Irish Citizenship.


I don't think that's right.  They're not automatically Irish citizens; they're entitled to become Irish citizens (if they were born before January 2005 - the Irish constitution has been chamged).  Unless and until they exercise that right, they're not dual citizens; as such, their British citizenship can't be removed (because that'd make them stateless).

In any event, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  How loyalists are treated by the British government isn't relevant to my point you quoted; it was a comment on Spymaster's/Rob Roy's argument about whether it not the left treats Begum differently from how it treats other fascists in similar circumstances.  My point being there is no suitable comparator.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

I see that on average about 35 people a year get their British citizenship taken away from them by decision of the home secretary. Anybody know whether this also happens when the country they get dumping on is a place that 'we' want stuff from, like a lucrative trade agreement or political collaboration of some kind or only when it's a crap country like bangladesh. Have we dumped unwanted people on america or france for instance or not.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Has Begum denounced theirs? Or before having a desperate motivation for doing so?


I don't know. Do you?


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> I see that on average about 35 people a year get their British citizenship taken away from them by decision of the home secretary. Anybody know whether this also happens when the country they get dumping on is a place that 'we' want stuff from, like a lucrative trade agreement or political collaboration of some kind or only when it's a crap country like bangladesh. Have we dumped unwanted people on america or france for instance or not.


The most famous example of the UK doing that is when it stitched up 'five eyes' ally Canada over Jack Letts.  But that's unusual. Though it's not clear if that's because the UK is trying to keep those countries happy, or because these individuals don't typically have dual citizenship with such countries.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> This is why I don’t think it’s worth getting worked-up about it. People suggest that it’s a power that could be abused but I asked on here months ago if anyone could come up with a single example of that happening to a non-terrorist and so far nobody has.


You think? The governments here have had a tendency to deport first, ask questions later. As I recall, the Windrush scandal saw people who had lived here for decades removed for such unacceptable behaviour as traffic offenses.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> This is one of those subjects where parts of the left show themselves up as being completely out of touch with what the general public think. And it fucking pisses me off. Because for every economic argument you can convince people of they are repelled by this kind of bullshit by folk who would do better keeping their mouths shut.


I can just see an earlier version of you passing out the white feathers then volunteering to be first over the top, just to keep in step with good old general public.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> I can just see an earlier version of you passing out the white feathers then volunteering to be first over the top, just to keep in step with good old general public.


When spending so long inside lefty bubbles I find it helps to sometimes touch base, else completely lose perspective.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

kebabking said:


> You should petition the Bangladeshi government.


Seems flippant


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> Where?


Bangladesh


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> You think? The governments here have had a tendency to deport first, ask questions later. As I recall, the Windrush scandal saw people who had lived here for decades removed for such unacceptable behaviour as traffic offenses.



Well again, can you give me a single instance of it happening to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist?


----------



## maomao (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well again, can you give me a single instance of it happening to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist?


He did. It was permanent residence that was denied rather than citizenship but apart from the right to vote it amounts to the same thing.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Seems flippant



I'll be honest, I'm not bashing out an endless stream of letters to the Embassy


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I asked on here months ago if anyone could come up with a single example of that happening to a non-terrorist and so far nobody has.





Spymaster said:


> Well again, can you give me a single instance of it happening to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist?


so you are fine with nonces being added, no problem, what else would be ok? It's available to use for fraud as well is that also fine ?
Your faith that Mrs Braverman can be relied upon to act with restraint and good reasoning is quite sweet really.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> Bangladesh


There's no real prospect of that ever happening, though.  Apart from anything else, there's no way of getting her there; Bangladesh wouldn't accept her.  It's an entirely theoretical threat, played upon as leverage in her legal claims to return to the UK.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Haven’t read it but putting this here for later, it’s about the dubious position of this uk law when viewed internationally. 








						The legality of the citizenship deprivation of UK foreign terrorist fighters - ERA Forum
					

Citizenship deprivation of foreign terrorist fighters by the United Kingdom is increasing. This is of debatable legality under international law on five separate grounds. First, the UK is arguably wrong in claiming that an extraterritorial deprivation is outside the jurisdiction of the ECHR...




					link.springer.com


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> so you are fine with nonces being added, no problem, what else would be ok? It's available to use for fraud as well is that also fine ?
> Your faith that Mrs Braverman can be relied upon to act with restraint and good reasoning is quite sweet really.



Show me that this has happened to someone I should give a fuck about. If you can’t just say so.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> Your faith that Mrs Braverman can be relied upon to act with restraint and good reasoning is quite sweet really.


Astonishing how many supposed cynics think it's perfectly fine to encourage the use of such tactics really. I suppose it's a "meh, never happen to me" thing - not an apathy any anarchist or communist has the luxury to indulge if they've read much history. Berneri, Kropotkin, Berkman, Goldman ...


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

maomao said:


> He did.



Where?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I am not comfortable with her now facing the death penalty


That's easy solved, go there and offer yourself in her place


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Show me that this has happened to someone I should give a fuck about. If you can’t just say so.


First they came for the people you couldn't give a fuck about...


----------



## maomao (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Where?


In the post that you replied to. Are you denying that people had their residence removed for minor crimes?


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Show me that this has happened to someone I should give a fuck about. If you can’t just say so.


Oh ok I didn’t realise that’s what the most important issue is, whether you give a fuck about them or not.
What about the perfectly nice family who might end up living next door to her in Bangladesh why should they have to deal with her when she’s a 100 % made in Great Britain product.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I seem to remember one where it was decided in court that a nazi terrorist to be *should read one of the Bronte sisters' books*, and some posters thought it was a pretty good idea coz we need to find alternatives to retributive justice.


That _is_ retributive justice.


----------



## Karl Masks (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> There's no real prospect of that ever happening, though.  Apart from anything else, there's no way of getting her there; Bangladesh wouldn't accept her.  It's an entirely theoretical threat, played upon as leverage in her legal claims to return to the UK.


I think she should be allowed to return. She has offered to work with anti radicalisation efforts which i think makes a lot of sense. I find this whole situation disgusting, state bullying of hte worst kind. Of course if she were to return the gammon loons would make her life a misery as an endless well of outrage. If she were or is guilty of actual crimes then try her here. Isn't British justice meant to be the bestest in all the world?


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> Oh ok I didn’t realise that’s what the most important issue is, whether you give a fuck about them or not.
> What about the perfectly nice family who might end up living next door to her in Bangladesh why should they have to deal with her when she’s a 100 % made in Great Britain product.


There's some weight to the argument about the UK's moral responsibility to others, but I suppose the UK government's position would be that it has a duty to protect the British public, not the Bangladeshi public.


----------



## tim (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> I don't think that's right.  They're not automatically Irish citizens; they're entitled to become Irish citizens (if they were born before January 2005 - the Irish constitution has been chamged).  Unless and until they exercise that right, they're not dual citizens; as such, their British citizenship can't be removed (because that'd make them stateless).
> 
> In any event, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  How loyalists are treated by the British government isn't relevant to my point you quoted; it was a comment on Spymaster's/Rob Roy's argument about whether it not the left treats Begum differently from how it treats other fascists in similar circumstances.  My point being there is no suitable comparator.




According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:

If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...




__





						Citizenship - Department of Foreign Affairs
					

Applications and questions about Irish citizenship are dealt with by the Irish Naturalisation and Immigration Service (INIS). We deal with Foreign Births Registration only.



					www.dfa.ie
				




So let's make all those with convictions for Loyalist terrorism or support of illegal  Loyalist organisations proper Irish and nothing else.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

maomao said:


> In the post that you replied to. Are you denying that people had their residence removed for minor crimes?



Windrush was a scandal that happened over 60 years ago. We were still executing people then too, and homosexuality was illegal. Things move on and times change. Sinking women accused of witchcraft used to happen too. Do you have any examples of people being wrongfully deprived of citizenship this century?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> Oh ok I didn’t realise that’s what the most important issue is, whether you give a fuck about them or not.



At least you’re up to speed now.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> There's some weight to the argument about the UK's moral responsibility to others, but I suppose the UK government's position would be that it has a duty to protect the British public, not the Bangladeshi public.


In the 'rwanda plan' there was at least plenty of shady money involved in getting them to agree to take on the people that the uk wanted rid of, this thing just takes advantage of countries who happen to have generous citizenship laws, using them as an excuse to wash our hands of all responsibility for our undesirables.
As well as being massively racist because these different citizenship laws end up meaning that "non-white ethnic minority residents are eight times more likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship than white residents of all backgrounds.'


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> I think she should be allowed to return. She has offered to work with anti radicalisation efforts which i think makes a lot of sense. I find this whole situation disgusting, state bullying of hte worst kind. Of course if she were to return the gammon loons would make her life a misery as an endless well of outrage. If she were or is guilty of actual crimes then try her here. Isn't British justice meant to be the bestest in all the world?


I think there are some sound arguments against this law, but her offer isn't one of the stronger ones.  Apart from having no idea about how sincere she is, there's significant doubt about the efficacy of deradicalisation programmes.

It may not be possible to convict her of any crime (for the reasons discussed), and/or it may be that any sentence after conviction is insufficient to mitigate the risk she poses.  Without knowing the intelligence it's impossible for any of us to assess whether the deprivation of citizenship was a proportionate response.  (Not a defence of this power _per se_, but a recognition that it's a gross oversimplification to assert that the existing criminal law is a sufficient tool to mitigate the risks posed by some of these individuals.)

Lol re the superiority of British justice.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

tim said:


> According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:
> 
> If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...
> 
> ...



I’m not sure if loyalist terrorists are considered a threat to UK national security. The Irish government should pull their Irish citizenships though.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Hasn't she totally burned her bridges now by slagging ISIS off with her hair all visible on tv and everything anyway.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

tim said:


> According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:
> 
> If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...
> 
> ...


They were planting bombs in Eire


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Things move on and times change.


Lol. Governmental tendencies to extend the use of repressive powers whenever they think they can get away with it do not change. I think you know that.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> In the 'rwanda plan' there was at least plenty of shady money involved in getting them to agree to take on the people that the uk wanted rid of, this thing just takes advantage of countries who happen to have generous citizenship laws, using them as an excuse to wash our hands of all responsibility for our undesirables.
> As well as being massively racist because these different citizenship laws end up meaning that "non-white ethnic minority residents are eight times more likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship than white residents of all backgrounds.'


I wouldn't argue with any of that.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Lol. Governmental tendencies to extend the use of repressive powers whenever they think they can get away with it do not change. I think you know that.



Yeah yeah yeah. 

Show me an example of this particular power being abused. How many times do I need to ask this?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Karl Masks said:


> She has offered to work with anti radicalisation efforts which i think makes a lot of sense.


We could have Rose West run the crèche.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah yeah yeah.
> 
> Show me an example of this particular power being abused. How many times do I need to ask this?


it's the wrong question but here's a weird case for you.
Guy had his citizenship removed not for terrorism or noncery but because he pretended to be a more highly qualified doctor than he actually was, thats it. His crime was  "deceiving DWP and HM Revenue & Customs". 




__





						Pirzada (Deprivation of citizenship: general principles : Afghanistan) [2017] UKUT 196 (IAC) (20 April 2017)
					





					www.bailii.org


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

tim said:


> According to the Irish Government, who, of course, will probably defer to your exceptional expertise on constitutional law:
> 
> If you or your parent were born on the island of Ireland before 2005, you are an Irish citizen. You can apply for an Irish passport without making an application for citizenship...
> 
> ...


That website* doesn't reflect the intricacies of the legal position, contained in the legislation:





__





						Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act, 1956
					

The electronic Irish Statute Book (eISB) comprises the Acts of the Oireachtas (Parliament), Statutory Instruments, Legislation Directory, Constitution and a limited number of pre-1922 Acts.



					www.irishstatutebook.ie
				




In particular, see s.7 which differentiates people born in Northern Ireland.

You also need to consider Article 9(2)(1) of the Irish Constitution.

And s.6  of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004.

This Wikipedia article explains the current position quite well.





__





						Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




In particular:

'The Twenty-seventh Amendment was approved by referendum on 11 June 2004, and was enacted on 24 June. It inserted a new section in Article 9 of the constitution stating that, "notwithstanding any other provision of [the] Constitution", no-one would be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship unless they had at least one parent who was (or was entitled to be) an Irish citizen. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2004 amended citizenship law to remove the entitlement to citizenship from those born on the island of Ireland who did not have an Irish-citizen parent, or whose parents had not lived in Ireland for three of the previous four years. This law was commenced on 1 January 2005.[15]'

See here also:








						Irish nationality law - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				





In particular:

'Entitlement by birth, descent, or adoptionEdit

All persons born in the Republic of Ireland before 1 January 2005 automatically received citizenship at birth regardless of the nationalities of their parents.[72] Individuals born anywhere on the island of Ireland from that year on receive Irish citizenship at birth if they are not entitled to any other country's citizenship. *Otherwise, they are entitled to (but are not automatically granted) citizenship *if at least one parent is an Irish citizen or holds an entitlement to Irish citizenship, a British citizen, a resident with no time limit of stay in either the Republic or Northern Ireland, or a resident who has been domiciled in Ireland for at least three of the preceding four years.[73] Any person entitled to Irish citizenship who performs an act that only an Irish citizen has a right to do, such as applying for an Irish passport or registering to vote in national elections, automatically becomes a citizen.[55]

*Individuals born in Northern Ireland from 6 December 1922 to 1 December 1999 who did not have an Irish citizen parent were entitled to become Irish citizens by declaration.* Any person born in that territory from 2 December 1999 to 31 December 2004 is *entitled to* Irish citizenship regardless of the statuses of their parents;[74] this includes children born in Ireland between these dates to foreign government officials with diplomatic immunity, who are eligible to claim citizenship by special declaration.[75]'



Essentially, anyone born in Northern Ireland before 2005 is *entitled* to Irish citizenship (in addition to their British citizenship), but they're *not automatically* citizens from birth.   It requires a positive act.  I'm unaware of any Loyalist terrorists that have taken that act to obtain Irish citizenship, such that it would be an option to the British government to strip them of British citizenship.  Hence the fact that's not happened isn't an indicator of inconsistent use of the power (and that's before we come to all the other potential reasons for different treatment even if the powers could be used).

ETA: * that website demonstrably incorrectly conflates being a citizen with being entitled to to apply to become one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> They were planting bombs in Eire


Monaghan and Dublin so easily forgotten

There were bombs in 1973, and one attempt to bomb widow scallions (sp?) in the 90s which left to the death of an ira volunteer


----------



## tim (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> I’m not sure if loyalist terrorists are considered a threat to UK national security. The Irish government should pull their Irish citizenships though.




They murdered, maimed and bombed in the UK and some are still involved in criminality and violence. Isn't that good enough.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Windrush was a scandal that happened over 60 years ago. We were still executing people then too, and homosexuality was illegal. Things move on and times change. Sinking women accused of witchcraft used to happen too. Do you have any examples of people being wrongfully deprived of citizenship this century?




Ehrm, spy... Windrush scandal explained

The Windrush scandal started in 2012...


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

tim said:


> They murdered, maimed and bombed in the UK and some are still involved in criminality and violence. Isn't that good enough.


They're not dual citizens.

And, even if they were, the damage to Anglo-Irish relations would likely mean it wouldn't be in the public interest to use these powers.

Furthermore, given the effective cessation of Loyalist paramilitary activity, its not a given that the user of those powers would be proportionate.

You're really barking up the wrong tree with this one.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> it's the wrong question but here's a weird case for you.
> Guy had his citizenship removed not for terrorism or noncery but because he pretended to be a more highly qualified doctor than he actually was, thats it. His crime was  "deceiving DWP and HM Revenue & Customs".
> 
> 
> ...


You'd think the higher crime would be the risk to any patients in his care, but I suppose like Al Capone, sometimes the revenue is the simplest thing to get a criminal on.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

If he’d gone around doing a harold shipman that would be different, but he didn’t at all, so the dodgy doctor case shows that it’s not just terrorists & nonces who can get their citizenship taken away it’s also people who lie on their CVs.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> it's the wrong question but here's a weird case for you.
> Guy had his citizenship removed not for terrorism or noncery but because he pretended to be a more highly qualified doctor than he actually was, thats it. His crime was  "deceiving DWP and HM Revenue & Customs".
> 
> 
> ...


It's important to note that he wasn't born a UK citizen.  And that he was engaged in criminal activity at the time of his application for citizenship, and lied about that in the application.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> It's important to note that he wasn't born a UK citizen.  And that he was engaged in criminal activity at the time of his application for citizenship, and lied about that in the application.


Dunno if it’s relevant really. He went to prison for the lying on his CV and then as an afterthought they decided to de-citizen him it seems.








						NHS nurse jailed for falsifying qualifications
					

Abdul Pirzada worked as locum GP after falsely claiming to have worked for the UN and the French Red Cross




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> Dunno if it’s relevant really. He went to prison for the lying on his CV and then as an afterthought they decided to de-citizen him it seems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you lie on your application for citizenship, and it wouldn't have been granted if you'd told the truth, then it doesn't seem that unreasonable for it to be revoked when that lie is discovered.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> If you lie on your application for citizenship, and it wouldn't have been granted if you'd told the truth, then it doesn't seem that unreasonable for it to be revoked when that lie is discovered.


If you look at the appeal decision (oddly interesting)  the dodgy doc won and Home Secretary lost.




__





						Tribunal decisions
					






					tribunalsdecisions.service.gov.uk


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> If you look at the appeal decision (oddly interesting)  the dodgy doc won and Home Secretary lost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but that was on procedure - the Home Office cocked it up - rather than merits.  In fact the Upper Tribunal went as far as to say that he might have lawfully been stripped, but the decision was, in effect, procedurally unlawful.

_"The claimant's case looks very much like one in which a decision of the sort against which he appealed would be not merely permissible but entirely justified."_

I don't know whether, after that decision was quashed, she then made another decision (which would've been a third attempt!) which was unassailable.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

yes. cool case though wasn't it. I have no problem with the idea that people can lose their citizenship if they totally lied to get it, that seems kind of fair enough, it's the 'are you of good character and loyal to the state' bit that i think is ... problematic.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2022)

Ireland's a dead-end anyway, even if you get a NI loyalist and remove his UK citizenship, he's still able to enter the UK at will due to the common travel area. Whilst it may be a lol to do such a thing I would guess that most of these fuckers have Irish passports already, since Brexit at any road...


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> yes. cool case though wasn't it. I have no problem with the idea that people can lose their citizenship if they totally lied to get it, that seems kind of fair enough, it's the 'are you of good character and loyal to the state' bit that i think is ... problematic.


Yeah, it was an interesting case.  Though not as interesting as some of those SIAC decisions.  There's a few in that list I posted yesterday where people are tapped up my MI6 and all sorts!


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> Ehrm, spy... Windrush scandal explained
> 
> The Windrush scandal started in 2012...



Yep, fair play. I didn’t think that through.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah yeah yeah.
> 
> Show me an example of this particular power being abused. How many times do I need to ask this?


I listed four historic cases, two of which (Goldman and Berkman, deported to Russia) were from the Free and Democratic US of A. There's countless other examples in European and US history of exile and citizenship being used as a weapon against dissenters.

Your apparent argument that it won't happen because it's not happened _yet_ (to someone you deem an unfair case) is infantile and far too naive to be an honest position, given your long-standing presence on Urban. We all saw and discussed the police making all kinds of assurances when the anti-terror laws came in that they'd not be used against protesters, yet lo and behold. The most recent anti-protest laws are just the latest in a long line of legislation and action showing comprehensively what the State is prepared to do given the chance, but it's lalala, fingers in ears, I'm alright Jack from you.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Monaghan and Dublin so easily forgotten
> 
> There were bombs in 1973, and one attempt to bomb widow scallions (sp?) in the 90s which left to the death of an ira volunteer


To be comparable they would have to have settled there to carry out the atrocities. Which is what Begum did.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> I listed four historic cases, two of which (Goldman and Berkman, deported to Russia) were from the Free and Democratic US of A. There's countless others in European and US history.
> 
> Your apparent argument that it won't happen because it's not happened _yet_ is infantile and far too naive to be an honest position, given your long-standing presence on Urban. We all saw and discussed the police making all kinds of assurances when the anti-terror laws came in that they'd not be used against protesters, yet lo and behold. The anti-protest laws are just the latest in a long line of legislation showing comprehensively what the State is prepared to do given the chance, but it's lalala, fingers in ears, I'm alright Jack from you.


I quite like that we ought to support fascists abroad to aid the communist cause at home.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Yeah yeah yeah.
> 
> Show me an example of this particular power being abused. How many times do I need to ask this?


Isn't every upheld appeal against its use effectively evidence of it having been abused (albeit simultaneously a demonstration of checks and balances in the system)?


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> Isn't every upheld appeal against its use effectively evidence of it having been abused (albeit simultaneously a demonstration of checks and balances in the system)?


It’s evidence of there being checks and balances to prevent abuses and mistakes. Any laws can be abused and many are far more so than this one.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> To be comparable they would have to have settled there to carry out the atrocities. Which is what Begum did.


soz what bombs are you saying she planted?


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> It’s evidence of there being checks and balances to prevent abuses and mistakes. Any laws can be abused and many are far more so than this one.


Yeah, to a point.  But the fact of those successful appeals does show that the state does attempt to abuse the power.  And we have to suspect that not all of those abuses are effectively challenged, given the logistical difficulties in bringing a claim if, for instance, you're overseas.

ETA: You can take a position that a few miscarriages of justice are a price worth paying to address the security risk some of these people pose, but you should be honest about it, and not pretend that those things don't/won't happen.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> yes. cool case though wasn't it. I have no problem with the idea that people can lose their citizenship if they totally lied to get it, that seems kind of fair enough, it's the 'are you of good character and loyal to the state' bit that i think is ... problematic.


Is it problematic? Or is it just procedural but realistic? I mean, it's either broadly tick box yes or 'no, I have no real liking for/fucking hate the place, and my only real intention is to con the locals for monetary gain'.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> Yeah, to a point.  But the fact of those successful appeals does show that the state does attempt to abuse the power.  And we have to suspect that not all of those abuses are effectively challenged, given the logistical difficulties in bringing a claim if, for instance, you're overseas.
> 
> ETA: You can take a position that a few miscarriages of justice are a price worth paying to address the security risk some of these people pose, but you should be honest about it, and not pretend that those things don't/won't happen.



Well that’s pretty much my position. When/if it happens to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist I might give a toss. But someone who joined IS … couldn’t care less.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well that’s pretty much my position. When/if it happens to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist I might give a toss. But someone who joined IS … couldn’t care less.


I can see why, but that's precisely why exceptions are dangerous. Here's one you don't mind. There will be another someone else doesn't mind. Before you know it, you're living in the kind of state that will make an exception of anybody.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well that’s pretty much my position. When/if it happens to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist I might give a toss. But someone who joined IS … couldn’t care less.


Fair enough if you think potential miscarriages - the direct and indirect consequences of them -  are a price worth paying to mitigate the security risk.

We can't know whether or not they're actually occurring, because we're not party to the information on which the decisions are based, and many of the decisions never face any legal scrutiny.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> couldn’t care less.


687 posts so far to make it absolutely clear how little you care is quite impressive.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well that’s pretty much my position. When/if it happens to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist I might give a toss. But someone who joined IS … couldn’t care less.


The problem is the precedents are set with people you couldn't care less about, once that's done the people you do care about don't have a leg to stand on


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> 687 posts so far to make it absolutely clear how little you care is quite impressive.


You should see his post count on the threads where he gives a shit


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> 687 posts so far to make it absolutely clear how little you care is quite impressive.



What a very silly post. I care a lot about the subject. I couldn’t care less that she’s had her citizenship revoked.


----------



## tim (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> soz what bombs are you saying she planted?



The ones in the febrile imaginations of middle-aged men posting here.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Well again, can you give me a single instance of it happening to someone who’s not a nonce or terrorist?


You want names? I can't remember but at the time when Windrush was big news, there were a few people deported for petty bullshit stuff from when they were teenagers and others for driving offences. Hardly nonces or terrorists.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> What a very silly post. I care a lot about the subject. I couldn’t care less that she’s had her citizenship revoked.


oh,  I thought that citizen revokation was the subject. What is it that you care a lot about then is it shamima in particular? Or do you mean that you very passionately and intensely do not care.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> Windrush was a scandal that happened over 60 years ago. We were still executing people then too, and homosexuality was illegal. Things move on and times change. Sinking women accused of witchcraft used to happen too. Do you have any examples of people being wrongfully deprived of citizenship this century?


I realise you're a known troll on here but are you really that fucking dense? The scandal was a consequence of recent government actions.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> oh,  I thought that citizen revokation was the subject. What is it that you care a lot about then is it shamima in particular? Or do you mean that you very passionately and intensely do not care.



You’re not usually this silly.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

"What examples are there"
_Gets a list from the West's inglorious history_
"Yeah but what _recent_ examples are there"
_Gets recent examples including from the Windrush generation being persecuted by Theresa May_
"Why can't anyone give me examples"

Jfc what a twat.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> soz what bombs are you saying she planted?





tim said:


> The ones in the febrile imaginations of middle-aged men posting here.



I seem to remember that there were allegations in the press that she sewed bombs into vests (and carried an AK47 as part of the morality police).  But I've no idea whether or not that's true.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> oh,  I thought that citizen revokation was the subject. What is it that you care a lot about then is it shamima in particular? Or do you mean that you very passionately and intensely do not care.


He cares about the subject; he doesn't care - in the sense of having any sympathy -  about her situation.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Spymaster said:


> You’re not usually this silly.


You are making no sense. You're basically just standing in the village square excited to throw rotten veg at the monstrous Shamima but you keep posting to try to pretend its something more than that, and have ended up saying some really stupid stuff as a result.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> He cares about the subject; he doesn't care - in the sense of having any sympathy -  about her situation.


What subject? He cares about citizenships being removed because he thinks thats a good and important thing? okay.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> What subject? He cares about citizenships being removed because he thinks thats a good and important thing? okay.


I think he cares to the extent he supports the existence and use of these powers.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> I think he cares to the extent he supports the existence and use of these powers.


If defending a home office power which isn't even threatened with change gets you all excited fair enough i suppose. 
I think he just wanted to wind up some bleeding hearts by shouting 'let her hang' but has ballsed it up and ended up looking a bit daft, never mind.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> I think he just wanted to wind up some bleeding hearts by shouting 'let her hang' but has ballsed it up and ended up looking a bit daft, never mind.


Yes, he's somewhat overplayed his hand.


----------



## Spymaster (Nov 24, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> "What examples are there"
> _Gets a list from the West's inglorious history_
> "Yeah but what _recent_ examples are there"
> _Gets recent examples including from the Windrush generation being persecuted by Theresa May_
> "Why can't anyone give me examples"



🤔


----------



## kebabking (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I can see why, but that's precisely why exceptions are dangerous. Here's one you don't mind. There will be another someone else doesn't mind. Before you know it, you're living in the kind of state that will make an exception of anybody.



It's the absolute paradox of democratic societies. States governed (broadly) by their people will do bad things, because people do bad things - but states not governed by their people aren't democracies.

Personally I have no problem with the principle of the removal of citizenship - even when that makes someone stateless - what matters, for me,is who gets to make that decision, and how, and to who, they have to justify it.

I would prefer it if the Home Secretary had to go to a panel of senior judges to get it through, and that it was then voted on in parliament. It's a big decision, and it needs the widest possible buy-in from society in order to be legitimate.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> soz what bombs are you saying she planted?


She played (at best) a logistical role for a genocidal rape cult. Not sure Hitler actually detonated any bombs either.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> She played (at best) a logistical role for a genocidal rape cult. Not sure Hitler actually detonated any bombs either.


you don't think he ever threw a grenade. despite him serving on the front in the first world war. right.

i love engaging with you except when as today your attention is clearly elsewhere.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

tim said:


> The ones in the febrile imaginations of middle-aged men posting here.


It’s you imagining anyone has said this.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> you don't think he ever threw a grenade. despite him serving on the front in the first world war. right.
> 
> i love engaging with you except when as today your attention is clearly elsewhere.


I hadn’t realised the First World War was Hitler’s fascism.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I hadn’t realised the First World War was Hitler’s fascism.


oh - you didn't know he'd fought in the first world war


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> oh - you didn't know he'd fought in the first world war


Was he fighting a fascist cause? Otherwise it’s sort of pointless mentioning it.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

oh good, hitler.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Was he fighting a fascist cause? Otherwise it’s sort of pointless mentioning it.


You said you didn't think Hitler ever detonated a bomb. I submit that he's likely to have being as he fought for four years. You didn't say you didn't think he'd detonated a bomb while a member of the nsdap, which would have been a rather different matter - I responded to the point you made, not the point you're now arguing


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> You said you didn't think Hitler ever detonated a bomb. I submit that he's likely to have being as he fought for four years. You didn't say you didn't think he'd detonated a bomb while a member of the nsdap, which would have been a rather different matter - I responded to the point you made, not the point you're now arguing


Where did I say he had never detonated a bomb? I thought the context was obvious - fascism ergo WWII. Anyway as we’re drifting completely off topic we should probably park it there.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Where did I say he had never detonated a bomb? I thought the context was obvious - fascism ergo WWII. Anyway as we’re drifting completely off topic we should probably park it there.


Yeh there was no fascist aggression before 1939 so let's move on


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

This sort of thing is why we don’t have referendums very often, like if we had a referendum on whether to reinstate the death penalty and advocates used SB as their poster girl it would win wouldn’t it.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> This sort of thing is why we don’t have referendums very often, like if we had a referendum on whether to reinstate the death penalty and advocates used SB as their poster girl it would win wouldn’t it.


The trouble is that, by definition, most people are average or below.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> The trouble is that, by definition, most people are average and below.


Not when it comes to driving though everyone is exceptionally good at that.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> Not when it comes to driving though everyone is exceptionally good at that.


There's some drivers that deserve hanging, for sure.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

kebabking said:


> It's the absolute paradox of democratic societies. States governed (broadly) by their people will do bad things, because people do bad things - but states not governed by their people aren't democracies.
> 
> Personally I have no problem with the principle of the removal of citizenship - even when that makes someone stateless - what matters, for me,is who gets to make that decision, and how, and to who, they have to justify it.
> 
> I would prefer it if the Home Secretary had to go to a panel of senior judges to get it through, and that it was then voted on in parliament. It's a big decision, and it needs the widest possible buy-in from society in order to be legitimate.


The other paradox is the cooperation with some dictators and not with others. That's really the only reason why Britain is in this mess. She moved to Syria, committed the crimes there, has not left that territory, and should really be tried by them at their earliest convenience (and tough luck for her if that's years away due to their domestic issues with state functioning). Whatever she arguably was when she went, she's now just an adult who doesn't live in the UK.

Britain doesn't want her (although in truth, the state doesn't actually care and has no principle at stake - she's simply a wonderfully useful example the Tories can campaign with as being tough on crime, particularly if some kind of foreign origin can be roped into the mix - young, photogenic, notorious, and safe to openly hate) but it can't openly cooperate with Assad like that, so they've loudly stripped her of her citizenship and tried to palm it off on Bangladesh.

If she had done this in innumerable other countries, some with equally horrible heads of state, she wouldn't have been stripped of citizenship, or turned into tabloid campaign fodder, and a third country wouldn't have been identified out of a line up. She'd have simply been left there, and the relevant British Embassy would've said 'yes you are our citizen, but you aren't in the UK - you went there, you did it, you pay for it there - or not, according to that country'.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

If she was a dual national combo of British and anything, and she'd done this in Thailand or India or the United States, the most she'd have merited would be a short list of local lawyers known to the embassy that she and/or her family might like to engage, and a request made public that 'if convicted could she please _not_ be given the death penalty because she's British and we don't do that here, so we need to make a polite show about you potentially doing it'.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> She played (at best) a logistical role for a genocidal rape cult. Not sure Hitler actually detonated any bombs either.


Maybe, maybe not. She's not on trial - yet. Her guilt or innocence can't be said because it hasn't been established, let alone has any mitigation been weighed against a verdict. It's just broadly two camps shouting at each other 'leave her to die, she's an evil cunt' v 'she's an innocent lamb who was led astray'. We can't really say she's either, because we simply don't know.

We can't even start the process to that knowledge until some jurisdiction stands up and says 'she's our problem'. That should be Syria, but for obvious reasons it isn't. Absent of that it should Britain, because this is where she was born and raised and then either unleashed upon Syria of her own free will or imported there. It can't realistically be Bangladesh - if only for the simple reason they've outright refused anyway. It makes very little sense for it to be The Netherlands which I've also seen floated owing to her husband being a Dutch national.

She's too useful to the British government in her current state and status - they couldn't have dreamt her up. She's all of Suella Braverman's Christmases come at once - probably the only topic where the majority of the British public would nod along in harmony with the Home Secretary. So, unless Syria turns into a model of efficiency, she's most likely to be in this position for years, and the rather pointless conversation around her in the UK will continue for years with no resolution in sight.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Maybe, maybe not. She's not on trial - yet. Her guilt or innocence can't be said because it hasn't been established


She travelled over two and a half thousand miles to join a newly formed Caliphate at war with the country she had left, amongst others. Unless she has the mental capacity of a frog she must have known the implications of doing that alone, without even contemplating the grotesque stuff they all got up to.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> There's some drivers that deserve hanging, for sure.


I'd favour drawing and quartering - with the castrated jewels shoved in their mouth to limit their ability to moan about it - before hanging, followed by rescuscitation for round two, and then a final mercy shown only to those whose heart hadn't yet given up the ghost of its own accord, in the case of some drivers - on the spot. Vehicle brought to a stop, dragged from their seat, then and there.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> She travelled over two and a half thousand miles to join a newly formed Caliphate at war with the country she had left, amongst others. Unless she has the mental capacity of a frog she must have known the implications of doing that alone, without even contemplating the grotesque stuff they all got up to.


Why are you arguing with me about this? I'm not arguing with you about this. Mere minutes ago I specified exactly why I wouldn't argue about those aspects, and either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it. We'll be doing this for years if we let ourselves, because that's the point - that's the purpose she serves the British government. And I said that already.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Why are you arguing with me about this? I'm not arguing with you about this. Mere minutes ago I specified exactly why I wouldn't argue about those aspects, and either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it. We'll be doing this for years if we let ourselves, because that's the point - that's the purpose she serves the British government. And I said that already.


You said she isn’t guilty of anything yet. I was pointing out her position isn’t particularly sound on that front. I suppose we can all thank that she hasn’t been shot for treason. Or disappeared to a CIA ‘questioning’ facility.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You said she isn’t guilty of anything yet. I was pointing out her position isn’t particularly sound on that front. I suppose we can all thank that she hasn’t been shot for treason. Or disappeared to a CIA ‘questioning’ facility.


I didn't. I said her guilt hasn't been established, and won't be until several processes have been completed - none of which either can be or will be soon, so there's little point in this hypothetical jury continuing an already years long bunfight for the sake of it. That, is what I said.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> It's just broadly two camps shouting at each other 'leave her to die, she's an evil cunt' v 'she's an innocent lamb who was led astray'.


Is the second take actually "an innocent lamb who was led astray" though? The one I tend to see is people saying she was groomed to do some stupid things, then said some horrible things, may or may not have done some terrible things after that, experienced some traumatic things, and eventually said some apologetic things. The difference of opinion is not really on whether she bears some responsibility but on how much, how it should be handled, and whether baying for blood is reasonable or not.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I didn't. I said her guilt hasn't been established, and won't be until several processes have been completed - none of which either can be or will be soon, so there's little point in this hypothetical jury continuing an already years long bunfight for the sake of it. That, is what I said.


You appear new here. None of the above prevents us arguing about such matters. Enjoy your stay.


----------



## bimble (Nov 24, 2022)

If she ever did get back here she'd have her own reality tv show 5 days a week people are so fascinated by her.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

bimble said:


> If she ever did get back here she'd have her own reality tv show 5 days a week people are so fascinated by her.


How I Turned My Life Around And Became a Liberal Consumer Just Like You!

She is in the news at the moment though.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You appear new here. None of the above prevents us arguing about such matters. Enjoy your stay.


Whatever.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Is the second take actually "an innocent lamb who was led astray" though? The one I tend to see is people saying she was groomed to do some stupid things, then said some horrible things, may not have done some terrible things after that, experienced some traumatic things, and eventually said some apologetic things. The difference of opinion is not really on whether she bears some responsibility but on how much, how it should be handled, and *whether baying for blood is reasonable or not.*


I think never. It can't be part of a criminal justice system (although it can be a perfectly understandable emotional response of a victim - which is rightly why they don't form part of the jury and have to recuse themselves from acting in a legal capacity if they have involvement). The rest is hypothetical, and will run and run. She's just the poster girl right now.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

I agree. Ironically, for all that the usual suspects have been banging on about leftie double standards they're the ones whose commitment to the rule of law has taken a barely-sublimated backseat to Hang Em And Flog Em posturing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I'd favour drawing and quartering - with the castrated jewels shoved in their mouth to limit their ability to moan about it - before hanging, followed by rescuscitation for round two, and then a final mercy shown only to those whose heart hadn't yet given up the ghost of its own accord, in the case of some drivers - on the spot. Vehicle brought to a stop, dragged from their seat, then and there.


How unimaginative


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> I agree. Ironically, for all that the usual suspects have been banging on about leftie double standards *they're the ones whose commitment to the rule of law has taken a barely-sublimated backseat to Hang Em And Flog Em posturing.*


Well of course. They hate sharia law because it's called sharia law and that means panic stations, but their views on criminal justice tend to dovetail with it perfectly - every single time. Maybe it's the halal meat component they really object to huh!

I'm very wary of this topic because it's just a roundabout with no real off ramp once you get on. I made the terrible error of doing so in the only other forum I use, where this topic came up. I objected to the open calls for and support for the most brutal forms of murder to be inflicted upon the girl, on the streets of this country, should she ever return. Found myself in a very long and pointless argument with multiple people who were fantasizing about literally painting the streets with her blood. Had it been face to face, I'd have quickly turned my back - forever - in revulsion, but the internet doesn't work that way. It was outrageous, psychopathic - and they were adamant that _I_ (along with her) was the evil party. And they never left me alone from then on. Anything I ever said on any topic, I was _that_ cunt. Along with a handful of other things (a couple of which were even my own fault, because I can admittedly be rather bitchy), it made usage intolerable for some time.

What almost pissed me off the most was that the kick off and majority of the most intense to and fro was the most gorgeous hot day, which I could've spent on the terrace with a good book, without the fight on multiple fronts.

It's just one of those touchstone topics in modern Britain, and most people haven't got much useful to contribute - including me, which is why I've stated my boundaries on it here. I have learned. Beyond stating your case and then getting out, it's a hiding to nothing but hassle.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

Yeah happens all over – I really shocked a guy the other day when I pointed out that merrily calling for a bike thief to have his hands cut off "like in Saudi Arabia" sounded a wee bit psychotic. He was just assuming everyone would agree with him. "I'm morally in the right" as an excuse for expressing your deranged violent fantasising to the world. Also see "if Just Stop Oil were in front of _my_ car I'd run them over and laugh about it." Cheers Maureen, good to bear in mind, now stay the fuck away from me ...


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

On the grooming point, the government's approach at today's hearing was twofold.  It's lawyers explained that MI5's assessment was that she went voluntarily with her eyes wide open.   But that, even if she had been groomed, that didn't mean she wasn't dangerous, such that the HS's decision would still be reasonable.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah happens all over – I really shocked a guy the other day when I pointed out that merrily calling for a bike thief to have his hands cut off "like in Saudi Arabia" sounded a wee bit psychotic. He was just assuming everyone would agree with him. "I'm morally in the right" as an excuse for expressing your deranged violent fantasising to the world.


More on than in


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> On the grooming point, the government's approach at today's hearing was twofold.  It's lawyers explained that MI5's assessment was that she went voluntarily with her eyes wide open.   But that, even if she had been groomed, that didn't mean she wasn't dangerous, such that the HS's decision would still be reasonable.




She hasn't been groomed, cos...
"It's lawyers explained that MI5's assessment was that she went voluntarily with her eyes wide open..." 

"But that, even if she had been groomed..."

They're flapping around as much as we are. At least them cunts are getting paid for it, I guess.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She hasn't been groomed, cos...
> "It's lawyers explained that MI5's assessment was that she went voluntarily with her eyes wide open..."
> 
> "But that, even if she had been groomed..."
> ...


It is a bit 'have you cake and eat it'!

Would be fascinating to know exactly what intel they had about her.


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah happens all over – I really shocked a guy the other day when I pointed out that merrily calling for a bike thief to have his hands cut off "like in Saudi Arabia" sounded a wee bit psychotic. He was just assuming everyone would agree with him. "I'm morally in the right" as an excuse for expressing your deranged violent fantasising to the world. Also see "if Just Stop Oil were in front of _my_ car I'd run them over and laugh about it." Cheers Maureen, good to bear in mind, now stay the fuck away from me ...


I think a lot of people in this country would attend public executions if they could. Many would take their kids along too. If the death penalty ever returns, I fully expect calls for it to be televised - the only debate some will be interested in will be whether the BBC should be forced to broadcast each one as part of its charter obligations, or whether ITV and Channel 5 can bid for it. The odd MP and breakfast news contributor will make a serviceable showbiz career out of popping up everywhere to laugh that Channel 4 should be made to screen it just to annoy liberals.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She hasn't been groomed, cos...
> "It's lawyers explained that MI5's assessment was that she went voluntarily with her eyes wide open..."
> 
> "But that, even if she had been groomed..."
> ...


So are we, if you post from work


----------



## maomao (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> What almost pissed me off the most was that the kick off and majority of the most intense to and fro was the most gorgeous hot day, which I could've spent on the terrace with a good book, without the fight on multiple fronts


I've spent many a summer's afternoon on a lounger in the garden getting a tan and calling people cunts on my phone. There's no reason compulsive internet use should deprive you of vitamin D.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 24, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> She hasn't been groomed, cos...
> "It's lawyers explained that MI5's assessment was that she went voluntarily with her eyes wide open..."
> 
> "But that, even if she had been groomed..."
> ...



I don't see it as flapping - I think that both things could be true at the same time.

It is _quite_ possible that she was groomed - like properly groomed - and went to Syria purely as a result of the persuasion/manipulation of others (I don't believe that, but I accept that it could be possible) - and that she could, despite being a victim of IS grooming, still be a commited IS supporter/instrument.

To draw an analogy, we know that a high proportion of those who abuse children where themselves abused as children - they are victims, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous to children.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

kebabking said:


> I don't see it as flapping - I think that both things could be true at the same time.
> 
> It is _quite_ possible that she was groomed - like properly groomed - and went to Syria purely as a result of the persuasion/manipulation of others (I don't believe that, but I accept that it could be possible) - and that she could, despite being a victim of IS grooming, still be a commited IS supporter/instrument.
> 
> To draw an analogy, we know that a high proportion of those who abuse children where themselves abused as children - they are victims, but that doesn't make them any less dangerous to children.


Yes.  And we should remember that the case is about the decision the HS made at that time.   Back then (presumably before she was getting advised about what to say publicly) she was much less repentant than she now purports to be.   She said she wasn't fazed by beheadings, and downplayed the Manchester bombing.


----------



## _Russ_ (Nov 24, 2022)

I find it odd that the same people who lustily looked forward to the death of an elderly women and spewed their hatred out frequently become so fucking caring towards a younger women that went off to embrace slaughter bigotry and intolerance.

Too fucking busy being careful to only care about those the right wing hate, then claiming a moral stance.


----------



## maomao (Nov 24, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> I find it odd that the same people who lustily looked forward to the death of an elderly women and spewed their hatred out frequently become so fucking caring towards a younger women that went off to embrace slaughter bigotry and intolerance.
> 
> Too fucking busy being careful to only care about those the right wing hate, then claiming a moral stance.


Whatever she did I don't think it's in any way comparable to the crimes of the British royal family.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> I find it odd that the same people who lustily looked forward to the death of an elderly women and spewed their hatred out frequently become so fucking caring towards a younger women that went off to embrace slaughter bigotry and intolerance.
> 
> Too fucking busy being careful to only care about those the right wing hate, then claiming a moral stance.


This would be the auld woman groomed by her mother and uncle in this photo I suppose


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> I find it odd that the same people who lustily looked forward to the death of an elderly women and spewed their hatred out frequently become so fucking caring towards a younger women that went off to embrace slaughter bigotry and intolerance.
> 
> Too fucking busy being *careful to only care about those the right wing hate,* then claiming a moral stance.


I'm not sure that ISIS is left wing? At least, not in the Western European social democratic way of things.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I'm not sure that ISIS is left wing? At least, not in the Western European social democratic way of things.



I don't think IS is remotely left wing - in a very cosmetic economic way perhaps - but that wasn't what I thought _Russ_ was getting at.

For me, if you're left wing, IS are on a equal footing with Himmler, or Saddam Hussein, or Beria or Stalin, or any other deeply vile regime/individual or ideology. What the right wing - of which there are as many strands of opinion as their are on the left - thinks of it simply isn't relevant to what anyone with fundamentally social, not-hating-people views should think.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 24, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> the same people who lustily looked forward to the death of an elderly women


Did they? Personally I was mostly disinterested. And if "they" (the amorphous mass) did, why do you think the death at great age of a figure who never faced so much as a cross word let alone justice for her role as the ultra-wealthy head of a rapacious imperial state, and who never for a moment thought she'd done anything wrong let alone repudiate her past actions, might cause a different reaction?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 24, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> So are we, if you post from work




What if you post from work but happen to own the company you work for?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 24, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What if you post from work but happen to own the company you work for?



Then you are a capitalist oppressor and the neckshot is in the post.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> What if you post from work but happen to own the company you work for?


Couldn't you pay someone to post for you?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> Whatever.


And besides, you started arguing with me in post #5,519 and not the other way round.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> And besides, you started arguing with me in post #5,519 and not the other way round.


Stop coming out with these facts and expecting them to bolster your case


----------



## Tanya1982 (Nov 24, 2022)

kebabking said:


> I don't think IS is remotely left wing - in a very cosmetic economic way perhaps - but that wasn't what I thought _Russ_ was getting at.
> 
> For me, if you're left wing, IS are on a equal footing with Himmler, or Saddam Hussein, or Beria or Stalin, or any other deeply vile regime/individual or ideology. What the right wing - of which there are as many strands of opinion as their are on the left - thinks of it simply isn't relevant to what anyone with fundamentally social, not-hating-people views should think.


I agree with your summary of them, but I'm not sure about your interpretation of what he meant by it. That western left wingers were only giving IS a pass because of being too busy criticizing right wing terror (therefore IS very much not part of that right wing) seemed implicit in the statement.


----------



## kebabking (Nov 24, 2022)

Tanya1982 said:


> I agree with your summary of them, but I'm not sure about your interpretation of what he meant by it. That western left wingers were only giving IS a pass because of being too busy criticizing right wing terror (therefore IS very much not part of that right wing) seemed implicit in the statement.



I saw it the other way about - that 'the left' was so obsessed with mirroring 'the right' that anything the 'the right' disliked 'the left' gave a bit of a free pass to - that the enemies of IS were 'the lefts' focus, not IS itself.

Personally I think such attempted definitions are utterly vacuous - that, as with Ukraine, there are so many violently different opinions within both the left and the right on the subject that to suggest there is a 'left' view and a 'right' view is to deny the Sun while staring it in the face.  

That's not, of course, to suggest that a significant slice of 'left,' opinion didn't go there...


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

The bottom line is that because Begum is brown and has a vagina she is being considered differently via liberal QED than if she was white with a cock going into a fascist killing and rape spree. We all know this but still have to go through various mental gymnastics with folk who deny that's the case.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 24, 2022)

Are you daft? Sure there are eejits on the left that might think like that... or it's a convenient straw man to have a go at. But there are those on the left who are trying to take a more reasoned approach. Try arguing against those people's views rather than what you want them to be.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Are you daft? Sure there are eejits on the left that might think like that... or it's a convenient straw man to have a go at. But there are those on the left who are trying to take a more reasoned approach. Try arguing against those people's views rather than what you want them to be.


I know the left well enough, over decades not years, to understand the various biases and where they lead.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The bottom line is that because Begum is brown and has a vagina she is being considered differently via liberal QED than if she was white with a cock going into a fascist killing and rape spree. We all know this but still have to go through various mental gymnastics with folk who deny that's the case.



Nope, if a white male 15-year-old did what she'd done I'd also want him to keep his citizenship and be prosecuted for his crimes. Born here, raised here, they're ours to deal with.

The odds are Begum would end up in prison for life. 

The only gender-related part, really, is that stripping her of her citizenship also meant her last son, who still had a chance, was left to die. And his mother was, until her citizenship was stripped, a British citizen, and he had family here that seem to be relatively sound. Not sure what that baby was supposed to have been guilty of.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

scifisam said:


> Nope, if a white male 15-year-old did what she'd done I'd also want him to keep his citizenship and be prosecuted for his crimes. Born here, raised here, they're ours to deal with.


It's impossible to find a similar case but I don't accept this as true.
White male nationalists imprisoned for various offenses are regularly discussed on here and there are never any opposing voices. And rightly so.
Yet they haven't done the half of what she faces. They've been sanctioned for downloading terrorist manuals. Being part of a subscribed group.
She traversed a continent to join a group actively at war and doing the whole terrorist thing, raping and killing people. Why the tears? Jesus.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> It's impossible to find a similar case but I don't accept this as true.
> White male nationalists imprisoned for various offenses are regularly discussed on here and there are never any opposing voices. And rightly so.
> Yet they haven't done the half of what she has. They've been imprisoned for downloading terrorist manuals. Being part of a subscribed group.
> She traversed a continent to join a group actively at war and doing the whole terrorist thing, raping and killing people. Why the tears? Jesus.



I don't think there are any tears for Begum herself.

I can't speak for everyone, but if a 15-year-old British boy did the same, I'd also want him to come back and be tried and most likely spend the rest of his life in prison. What a weak liberal I am for hoping for... life in prison after a trial.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

scifisam said:


> The odds are Begum would end up in prison for life.


Lol, what?!

The offence of which she'd likely be convicted is s.4 Border Security Act 2019 known as 'Entering or Remaining in a Designated Area'.  That offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, which would be for e.g. adults suspected of fighting who have not already received any punishment.  Given she was a minor and non-combatant, and already served a considerable time in prison, she'd likely get four years, which would mean she'd be entitled to release on license after two. And that's *if* she's convicted; her lawyer's would push the defence that alleged grooming and trafficking meant she didn't travel voluntarily.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

scifisam said:


> I don't think there are any tears for Begum herself.
> 
> I can't speak for everyone, but if a 15-year-old British boy did the same, I'd also want him to come back and be tried and most likely spend the rest of his life in prison. What a weak liberal I am for hoping for... life in prison after a trial.


What's wrong with her current predicament? It's what she chose after all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> Lol, what?!
> 
> The offence of which she'd likely be convicted is s.4 Border Security Act 2019 known as 'Entering or Remaining in a Designated Area'.  That offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, which would be for e.g. adults suspected of fighting who have not already received any punishment.  Given she was a minor and non-combatant, and already served a considerable time in prison, she'd likely get four years, which would mean she'd be entitled to release on license after two.


Not sure scifisam's as au fait with the law as you


----------



## scifisam (Nov 24, 2022)

Athos said:


> Lol, what?!
> 
> The offence of which she'd likely be convicted is s.4 Border Security Act 2019 known as 'Entering or Remaining in a Designated Area'.  That offence carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, which would be for e.g. adults suspected of fighting who have not already received any punishment.  Given she was a minor and non-combatant, and already served a considerable time in prison, she'd likely get four years, which would mean she'd be entitled to release on license after two.



Oh come on. You're not really making a good play for let her hang.


----------



## Athos (Nov 24, 2022)

scifisam said:


> Oh come on. You're not really making a good play for let her hang.


I don't want her to hang.   But the idea that if she came back any risk she poses would be minimised by a significant prison term is fanciful.


----------



## xenon (Nov 24, 2022)

And still no one gets all worked up about Alexanda Koety. Stripped of his British citizenship. Where were the pages and pages saying he should have been brought back to the UK. 

Oh but I didnt' see it at the time and yeah should etc. Point is, nothing, no one raised it. In fact I've probably mentioned him more times just on this thread.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 24, 2022)

xenon said:


> And still no one gets all worked up about Alexanda Koety. Stripped of his British citizenship. Where were the pages and pages saying he should have been brought back to the UK.
> 
> Oh but I didnt' see it at the time and yeah should etc. Point is, nothing, no one raised it. In fact I've probably mentioned him more times just on this thread.


He hasn't got a vagina so nobody cares about his destiny.


----------



## xenon (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He hasn't got a vagina so nobody cares about his destiny.




I think you have a point. Along with her age, patriarchy is playing some role both in the extremis condemnation and the, she must have been groomed, bring her home, she had babies, she can tell the school kids don't join Isis, it's not cool mkey. 

There's El Shafee Elsheikh too whom TBF I haven't even mentioned. But again stripped of British citizenship.


----------



## Humberto (Nov 24, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He hasn't got a vagina so nobody cares about his destiny.



Stupid comment


----------



## Humberto (Nov 24, 2022)

15


----------



## Dystopiary (Nov 25, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Stop coming out with these facts and expecting them to bolster your case


Facts? Tanya's response was hardly "arguing."


----------



## Dystopiary (Nov 25, 2022)

Rob Ray said:


> Yeah happens all over – I really shocked a guy the other day when I pointed out that merrily calling for a bike thief to have his hands cut off "like in Saudi Arabia" sounded a wee bit psychotic. He was just assuming everyone would agree with him. "I'm morally in the right" as an excuse for expressing your deranged violent fantasising to the world. Also see "if Just Stop Oil were in front of _my_ car I'd run them over and laugh about it." Cheers Maureen, good to bear in mind, now stay the fuck away from me ...


Totally get what you mean but psychotic ≠ having a shit personality/dreadful politics/being a psychopath.


----------



## Dystopiary (Nov 25, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> I find it odd that the same people who lustily looked forward to the death of an elderly women and spewed their hatred out frequently become so fucking caring towards a younger women that went off to embrace slaughter bigotry and intolerance.
> 
> Too fucking busy being careful to only care about those the right wing hate, then claiming a moral stance.


Sure you find it odd if you can't work out why people might feel that way.


----------



## scifisam (Nov 25, 2022)

xenon said:


> And still no one gets all worked up about Alexanda Koety. Stripped of his British citizenship. Where were the pages and pages saying he should have been brought back to the UK.
> 
> Oh but I didnt' see it at the time and yeah should etc. Point is, nothing, no one raised it. In fact I've probably mentioned him more times just on this thread.



He was 29 when he left the UK to join ISIS, not 15. He had two other citizenships, actually beheaded people, and he was actually given a trial which resulted in a sentence to be partly served in the US and then the UK.

I do still think he should have been treated as a British citizen and not have his citizenship taken away, because he was born here and spent most of his life here. 

But it's not merely gender at play here, is it.


----------



## _Russ_ (Nov 25, 2022)

Dystopiary said:


> Sure you find it odd if you can't work out why people might feel that way


I would think anyone with an IQ above 50 reading my post to its end (it is rather short really) could see that my post indicates clearly why I think people project such position, im not going to waste time expanding for numbskulls


----------



## bimble (Nov 25, 2022)

She’s a pretty good Rorschach test isn’t she. For the DM she’s their number one most hated symbol of evil and for Magnus she’s female privilege writ large.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> I find it odd that the same people who lustily looked forward to the death of an elderly women and spewed their hatred out frequently become so fucking caring towards a younger women that went off to embrace slaughter bigotry and intolerance.
> 
> Too fucking busy being careful to only care about those the right wing hate, then claiming a moral stance.


This would be the elderly woman whose troops killed civilians in Ireland, Kenya, Malaysia, Iraq, Afghanistan, England, Korea, Germany, Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, aden, and numerous other countries. Whose governments have led us to the shit we're in now. Whose constables rape, murder, criminalise and intimidate. Frankly i find it really really strange you can't see why people would eagerly anticipate the death of Elizabeth ii and indeed the extirpation of her nefandous family. By contrast sb is a model citizen


----------



## Athos (Nov 25, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> This would be the elderly woman whose troops killed civilians in Ireland, Kenya, Malaysia, Iraq, Afghanistan, England, Korea, Germany, Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia, Sierra Leone, aden, and numerous other countries. Whose governments have led us to the shit we're in now. Whose constables rape, murder, criminalise and intimidate. Frankly i find it really really strange you can't see why people would eagerly anticipate the death of Elizabeth ii and indeed the extirpation of her nefandous family. By contrast sb is a model citizen


In fairness, she was literally groomed to it from birth, by everyone around her.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 25, 2022)

Athos said:


> In fairness, she was literally groomed to it from birth, by everyone around her.


She never stood a chance


----------



## Athos (Nov 25, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> She never stood a chance


----------



## Athos (Nov 25, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> He hasn't got a vagina so nobody cares about his destiny.


Oh, come on!  He was an adult, who knew he had dual citizenship, actually beheaded people, and underwent a due process in which he admitted his guilt.   To suggest that the difference in treatment between him and Begum is female privilege at work is either incredibly stupid or extremely disingenuous.


----------



## Sue (Nov 25, 2022)

scifisam said:


> He was 29 when he left the UK to join ISIS, not 15. He had two other citizenships, actually beheaded people, and he was actually given a trial which resulted in a sentence to be partly served in the US and then the UK.


But apart from that, it's _exactly_ the same thing.


----------



## bimble (Nov 25, 2022)

why actually is Kotey serving life in prison in america (on their tax dollars etc) when he was made in the UK ?


----------



## Athos (Nov 25, 2022)

Because he conspired to murder US citizens. (And I think he's being transferred to a UK prison after 15 years, if he complies with the terms of the plea agreement.)


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Nov 25, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The bottom line is that because Begum is brown and has a vagina she is being considered differently via liberal QED than if she was white with a cock going into a fascist killing and rape spree. We all know this but still have to go through various mental gymnastics with folk who deny that's the case.


This is desperate stuff from you Magnus.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Nov 25, 2022)

bimble said:


> why actually is Kotey serving life in prison in america (on their tax dollars etc) when he was made in the UK ?




He, along with his co-conspirators murdered 4 US citizens. He's repented and will come back to the UK at some point, the other scumbag will die in a US prison, though he's managed to avoid the worst fate the US can offer, ADX Florence.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Nov 25, 2022)

If Sajid claims worrying info informed his decision how different is it for her to be in  prison camp in Syria vs locked up here. In Syria she can mount a PR campaign. In a UK prison less so.
You do want to speculate what Sajid knows. Is she actually at the heart of ISIS organising bad stuff from her prison camp?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 25, 2022)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> He, along with his co-conspirators murdered 4 US citizens. He's repented and will come back to the UK at some point, the other scumbag will die in a US prison, though he's managed to avoid the worst fate the US can offer, ADX Florence.


Why's he coming back to the UK if he's not a British citizen? What a load of performative bollocks.


----------



## Dystopiary (Nov 25, 2022)

_Russ_ said:


> I would think anyone with an IQ above 50 reading my post to its end (it is rather short really) could see that my post indicates clearly why I think people project such position, im not going to waste time expanding for numbskulls


Well then. It's what they both represent really then isn't it. Gotta say, I doubt (might be wrong of course) that many people who want to abolish the monarchy, didn't feel sad about the queen dying and mock them would actually want to reinstate the death penalty. But I'd bet a pound to a penny the Venn diagram of those glad of Begum being stripped of UK citizenship and those who'd want the death penalty would have a large overlap.

Her being stripped of her British citizenship concerns me: to the ruling class, it never stops with "people like her." Our freedoms are being increasingly eroded as it is. I don't think it should be made easier by being us complacent about that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2022)

Athos said:


> Oh, come on!  He was an adult, who knew he had dual citizenship, actually beheaded people, and underwent a due process in which he admitted his guilt.   To suggest that the difference in treatment between him and Begum is female privilege at work is either incredibly stupid or extremely disingenuous.


Yeah, I was chatting shit at this point. I'll eat humble pie for a bit.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> This is desperate stuff from you Magnus.


I definitely shouldn't come on here after a beer. I get carried away.


----------



## tim (Nov 27, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The bottom line is that because Begum is brown and has a vagina she is being considered differently via liberal QED than if she was white with a cock going into a fascist killing and rape spree. We all know this but still have to go through various mental gymnastics with folk who deny that's the case.



When has she been accused of raping or killing anyone? And white men convicted of brutal sectarian murders in Northern Ireland were released very quickly once the situation changed.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2022)

tim said:


> When has she been accused of raping or killing anyone? And white men convicted of brutal sectarian murders in Northern Ireland were released very quickly once the situation changed.


You're basically defending the Nazi "just following orders, guv" position.
We can't say what crimes she did or didn't participate in. But she supported what the regime was doing.


----------



## tim (Nov 27, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You're basically defending the Nazi "just following orders, guv" position.
> We can't say what crimes she did or didn't participate in. But she supported what the regime was doing.


The only following orders excuse was used by those who were proven to have committed war crimes bit by nonparticipants.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2022)

tim said:


> The only following orders excuse was used by those who were proven to have committed war crimes bit by nonparticipants.



She appears to have changed her position due to the Caliphate collapsing and ending up in a grim refugee camp. I get that. But why would she be considered as anything other than a security risk?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 27, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> She appears to have changed her position due to the Caliphate collapsing and ending up in a grim refugee camp. I get that. But why would she be considered as anything other than a security risk?


She'd probably be recognised going into an Ariana Grande concert.

Seriously, though, we've had hundreds of IS fighters coming back to the UK. And we have people in the UK convicted of terrorist offences and sent to prison, rather than having their citizenship taken away, where that's possible.

Begum's treatment isn't about her being a security risk, it's about her being an opportunity for politicians.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2022)

Raheem said:


> Begum's treatment isn't about her being a security risk, it's about her being an opportunity for politicians.


From both sides of the spectrum.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 27, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> From both sides of the spectrum.


There is no spectrum.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2022)

Raheem said:


> There is no spectrum.


The right and the left are united on this issue?


----------



## Raheem (Nov 27, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The right and the left are united on this issue?


The parliamentary "right" and "left". Think so.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 27, 2022)

Raheem said:


> The parliamentary "right" and "left". Think so.


I was referring to here.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 27, 2022)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I was referring to here.


How many politicians are there here?


----------



## extra dry (Nov 27, 2022)

Raheem said:


> How many politicians are there here?


12 or 13 at last count they hide well, but Urban knows


----------



## Red Cat (Nov 27, 2022)

What a weird discussion. What's the actual difference between the statements left and right are united on this issue and both sides of the spectrum have used this situation as an opportunity to further their politics.


----------



## friedaweed (Dec 18, 2022)

Shamima Begum podcast to launch on BBC Sounds
					

The series seeks to separate fact from fiction as it explores who is Shamima Begum? How did she get to Syria? And what did she do when she got there?



					www.bbc.co.uk
				




This should be interesting listening.


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2022)

friedaweed said:


> Shamima Begum podcast to launch on BBC Sounds
> 
> 
> The series seeks to separate fact from fiction as it explores who is Shamima Begum? How did she get to Syria? And what did she do when she got there?
> ...



Give it a couple of years and she'll have a spot on _Songs Of Praise_ with Aled Jones.


----------



## tim (Dec 19, 2022)

8ball said:


> Give it a couple of years and she'll have a spot on _Songs Of Praise_ with Aled Jones.


Have you thought of applying for a job as a presenter on GBNEWTS?


----------



## 8ball (Dec 19, 2022)

tim said:


> Have you thought of applying for a job as a presenter on GBNEWTS?



They said my knowledge of semi-aquatic reptiles wasn’t up to the job.


----------



## tim (Dec 19, 2022)

8ball said:


> They said my knowledge of semi-aquatic reptiles wasn’t up to the job.


Anyway, you got beaten to it by a woman from Tufton Street.


----------



## friedaweed (Wednesday at 5:17 PM)

I'm Not a Monster - The Shamima Begum Story - Series 2: 1. It Felt Like a Dream - BBC Sounds
					

A London schoolgirl disappears. Four years later she's found in Syria with Isis




					www.bbc.co.uk
				




Released today on BBC Sounds. Not listened yet but will give it a whirl later.


----------



## _Russ_ (Yesterday at 9:53 PM)

Has 'her' book been published yet?


----------



## tim (Yesterday at 10:11 PM)

_Russ_ said:


> Has 'her' book been published yet?



No but the one by the terrorist killer who was radicalised in his twenties has.


----------



## Karl Masks (Yesterday at 10:12 PM)

_Russ_ said:


> Has 'her' book been published yet?


what do you care, you aren't going to buy it are you


----------



## friedaweed (Yesterday at 10:30 PM)

tim said:


> No but the one by the terrorist killer who was radicalised in his twenties has.


Is that George Bush's autobiography?


----------



## Raheem (Yesterday at 10:51 PM)

Shamima Begum should be reviewing Prince Harry's book on the BBC. They're slacking.


----------

