Should we throw a welcome party

[xsnaggle]

Why do you think we didn't formally declare war on IS?

Because it's not a sovereign nation.

[delmbox]

Delm, do you honestly deep down believe that whatever happens to her here will be less than warm and welcoming with all the anti-Brit anything and do-gooders looking out for her interests and her 'human-rights', the same rights the people she watched IS behead were denied. And in some years she'll be back on the streets radicalising others.
Several people who know about these things have said that deradicalisation progammes don't work.

To start with, when did "do gooders" become an insult? I've always thought it's such a weird thing that a certain type of person bandies that term around as a criticism of somebody. I know you weren't aiming it at me then but call me a do gooder all day long, it literally means a person trying to do good in their lives

Anyway I don't know what will happen to her from now on and I don't particularly care, I have no sympathy for her. However, she's British and we can't just give her to another country because we don't fancy dealing with her. That's the bottom line.

Also your last line means absolutely nothing whatsoever, it's vague and pointless. Very Trumpian in style actually, he loves a vague "people say..." statement

[lardy]

Because it's not a sovereign nation.

Thats's right. And do we still have the death penalty?

[Pedro de la Rosa]

No she is not. She forfeited her right to be a problem to this country when she waged war against it. She should be treated as a traitor. If we had formally declared war on IS she would have been shot or hanged !It's that simple.
But it is not her fault, she is just a girl!

You can't make someone stateless. She should come back here, and be tried for the crimes that she committed. I hope she never sees the light of day again but the government had absolutely no right to do what they did. Nobody is suggesting she should be welcomed back with open arms but she is our problem and nobody else.

[xsnaggle]

You can't make someone stateless. She should come back here, and be tried for the crimes that she committed. I hope she never sees the light of day again but the government had absolutely no right to do what they did. Nobody is suggesting she should be welcomed back with open arms but she is our problem and nobody else.

No she isn't.
She forfeited her rights when she waged war on us. Leave her where she is on give her back to IS.
You can make people stateless, thousands of people were made stateless after the second world war. It's nothing new.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

No she isn't.
She forfeited her rights when she waged war on us. Leave her where she is on give her back to IS.
You can make people stateless, thousands of people were made stateless after the second world war. It's nothing new.

It is illegal to make someone stateless. You cannot remove someones citizenship without them being a citizen of somewhere else. That's why she has been allowed back to challenge this ruling. This isn't a debate, it is a fact.

[ninian opinian]

The Secret Barrister nailed it as always.

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2019/...-to-legal-aid/

[xsnaggle]

It is illegal to make someone stateless. You cannot remove someones citizenship without them being a citizen of somewhere else. That's why she has been allowed back to challenge this ruling. This isn't a debate, it is a fact.

And where is this stated and what sanction is there on a nation that does it anyway?

[Pedro de la Rosa]

And where is this stated and what sanction is there on a nation that does it anyway?

She's being allowed to come back by our courts because of this reason. It isn't rocket science. They tried to argue she was Bangladeshi, who shockingly weren't terribly keen on giving her citizenship to a terrorist who's never been to Bangladesh.

[life on mars]

Because it's not a sovereign nation.

Or state, It seems to me our laws need re defining to deal with this type of crime ,wheres the SAS when you need them

[xsnaggle]

Thats's right. And do we still have the death penalty?

Yes

[xsnaggle]

She's being allowed to come back by our courts because of this reason. It isn't rocket science. They tried to argue she was Bangladeshi, who shockingly weren't terribly keen on giving her citizenship to a terrorist who's never been to Bangladesh.

and where is this stated and what sanction is there in a nation that does it anyway?

[lardy]

Yes

Really?

[xsnaggle]

Really?

Orthopaedic shoes! I know it wasn't repealed when the suspended (Excuse the pun ) hanging, but yes it was abolished in about '88 for treason.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

and where is this stated and what sanction is there in a nation that does it anyway?

Does light bend round you when you're as dense as you are?

[lardy]

Orthopaedic shoes! I know it wasn't repealed when the suspended (Excuse the pun ) hanging, but yes it was abolished in about '88 for treason.

So given that you know IS isn't a sovereign nation we can declare war on and that capital punishment was abolished decades ago, where were you going with this?

If we had formally declared war on IS she would have been shot or hanged !It's that simple.

[jon1959]

Or state, It seems to me our laws need re defining to deal with this type of crime ,wheres the SAS when you need them

Why do you think the SAS will be any good redefining UK law? That isn't what they do!

[splott parker]

Or state, It seems to me our laws need re defining to deal with this type of crime ,wheres the SAS when you need them

Well they’re not with Blackburn any more!

[CCFCC3PO]

Yes

Proof that this guy is trolling.

[life on mars]

Why do you think the SAS will be any good redefining UK law? That isn't what they do!

There beyond the law , as is Isis,but you know that dont you

[delmbox]

There beyond the law , as is Isis,but you know that dont you

I don't think the SAS are beyond the law, I don't think they're allowed to kill just anybody

[Rjk]

has this thread really come to "this girl has extreme views not compatible with the British way of life, so we should abandon that way of life and summarily execute her"?

[Jordi Culé]

has this thread really come to "this girl has extreme views not compatible with the British way of life, so we should abandon that way of life and summarily execute her"?

It’s a fantastic thread where some would pass a death sentence on a person who was a 15 year old kid, who was probably radicalised at an earlier age, for not conforming to the British way of life which consists of taking ecstasy at acid house parties and kicking off down the football.

[William Treseder]

Education is always the answer.
This girl, for what ever reason, thought it was a good idea, to turn her back on her family, and country of birth, and travel to a far away place to fight the good fight against the western world.
Thats pretty sad in itself.
If after being interviewed by the authorities, she shows no sign of remorse, then she should be put on trial for treason, and punished accordingly.
If as i hope, she is confused and remorseful, then surely the best path for her to take, would be to spend the rest of her life, trying to educate youngsters of the harm that brainwashing and radicalisation can cause.
Who knows. Something good could come out of this whole sorry affair.

[Rjk]

Education is always the answer.
This girl, for what ever reason, thought it was a good idea, to turn her back on her family, and country of birth, and travel to a far away place to fight the good fight against the western world.
Thats pretty sad in itself.
If after being interviewed by the authorities, she shows no sign of remorse, then she should be put on trial for treason, and punished accordingly.
If as i hope, she is confused and remorseful, then surely the best path for her to take, would be to spend the rest of her life, trying to educate youngsters of the harm that brainwashing and radicalisation can cause.
Who knows. Something good could come out of this whole sorry affair.

Shes currently still in a Syrian refugee camp - it might not be safe for her to completely denounce the terrorists she joined.
Or it might be that she stlll believes in their ideology.
At the moment we only have a handful of confused interviews and some inflammatory tabloid articles to go on really.