IS Schoolgirl wants to come home
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Rudi Hedman  Caterham 19 Feb 19 11.18am |
  |
|---|---|
|
I liked the faces the Scottish interviewer made asking her certain questions. Still no emotion from her. The more this is discussed and with more sensible posts from Matov, the harder it is to stick to a view. That said, when you choose to ditch everything this country stands for and you choose to side with the enemy, what do you expect? People do take the p1ss, including these radicals, and we’re setting a dangerous precedent taking her back. Is she worth the 24/7 surveillance and lifetime of benefits including every single benefit going?
COYP |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Charlie Croker Hampshire 19 Feb 19 11.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
It shouldn't - nor should her gender. If (and it's a big if) she were allowed back, she should be treated in the same way a 19 year old male who had gone out there and carried a gun and fought alongside Daesh (which she may have done). I'd like to think that would be a long sentence and no parole, but I assume that it won't be.
“My experience of life is that it is not divided up into genres; it’s a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you’re lucky." |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 19 Feb 19 2.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Is she worth the 24/7 surveillance and lifetime of benefits including every single benefit going? In terms of her as an individual,then not at all. But this has to be about so much more than just what she is. She is utterly vile and knowingly went to join an organisation that beheads people. Her culpability is not the issue here. We have a legal system. She is a British citizen. And she was technically a kid when she fled the country. That has to mean something. If she had been older then I would not even bother arguing in her favour, even though much of what I had written would still be valid but I would not care a jot. But she was a child. And as such, deserves at least an opportunity to be assessed back here in the UK, no matter how much that sickens us.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Feb 19 2.21pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
In terms of her as an individual,then not at all. But this has to be about so much more than just what she is. She is utterly vile and knowingly went to join an organisation that beheads people. Her culpability is not the issue here. We have a legal system. She is a British citizen. And she was technically a kid when she fled the country. That has to mean something. If she had been older then I would not even bother arguing in her favour, even though much of what I had written would still be valid but I would not care a jot. But she was a child. And as such, deserves at least an opportunity to be assessed back here in the UK, no matter how much that sickens us.
You seem to think that being beyond ethical in regards to an individual such as this means something. What is the purpose of giving a home to your stated enemy? So you can claim some moral superiority? Tell me....To what purpose is this?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 19 Feb 19 2.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Stupid comment by Pussay Patrol deleted
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 19 Feb 19 2.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You seem to think that being beyond ethical in regards to an individual such as this means something. What is the purpose of giving a home to your stated enemy? So you can claim some moral superiority? Tell me....To what purpose is this?
If you were to go abroad creating mayhem as many english people have done in history, I don't think it can be questioned that you are not still an english citizen, and international law is clear. Your country cannot make you stateless. England has been lumbered with far worse than this misguided young woman.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 19 Feb 19 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
If you were to go abroad creating mayhem as many english people have done in history, I don't think it can be questioned that you are not still an english citizen, and international law is clear. Your country cannot make you stateless. England has been lumbered with far worse than this misguided young woman. 'International law' No foreign entity can tell a sovereign state what it can and can't do....not in my book anyway. Sure they can complain about it but what are they going to do? I know you have an inferiority complex and all that but I don't trouble myself with bowing my head to what a bunch of mostly foreign lawyers think is ethical.....This isn't the end of WW2. I'm old enough to understand right and wrong and I'm also old enough to see what 'international law' is for what it actually is. And ethics has mostly little to do with it.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 19 Feb 19 2.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Your country cannot make you stateless. True but we have been (and probably still are) at war with Daesh which makes this woman a collaborator. Perhaps she should be treated in the same way as her buddies would have treated us and strap a bomb to her and send her off to her Daesh mates
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 19 Feb 19 3.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Given this some thought and ultimately it does come down to moral superiority. That is the point. We are better than them. For me the easiest option is to wash our hands of this girl. To strip her of her British nationality, to declare that she made her choice and now has to live with it. But that does not make it the right option. She was a child when she left. Effectively, she was a run-away. Playing truant from school. None of that excuses what she supported nor what she did but she is a British citizen and as such, has a right to present herself at our borders. This is not about being liberal or conservative. Right or Left wing. This is about accepting that a child made some s*** decisions and that she needs a chance to redeem herself. And that her own baby is an innocent party. Loathe her. Loathe her beliefs. Loathe her parents and her upbringing. I get, and endorse all of that. But the State has a duty to all of its subjects, especially those under the age of majority. If she decides to leave again, then wash your hands. But since she was a kid when she set off, a duty of care exists in my opinion.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 19 Feb 19 3.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
True but we have been (and probably still are) at war with Daesh which makes this woman a collaborator. Perhaps she should be treated in the same way as her buddies would have treated us and strap a bomb to her and send her off to her Daesh mates This really is a silly comment If we act as DAESH does, we are exactly the same. I thought we fought DAESH - at least in part - specifically because it does things like that.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 19 Feb 19 3.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Given this some thought and ultimately it does come down to moral superiority. That is the point. We are better than them. For me the easiest option is to wash our hands of this girl. To strip her of her British nationality, to declare that she made her choice and now has to live with it. But that does not make it the right option. She was a child when she left. Effectively, she was a run-away. Playing truant from school. None of that excuses what she supported nor what she did but she is a British citizen and as such, has a right to present herself at our borders. This is not about being liberal or conservative. Right or Left wing. This is about accepting that a child made some s*** decisions and that she needs a chance to redeem herself. And that her own baby is an innocent party. Loathe her. Loathe her beliefs. Loathe her parents and her upbringing. I get, and endorse all of that. But the State has a duty to all of its subjects, especially those under the age of majority. If she decides to leave again, then wash your hands. But since she was a kid when she set off, a duty of care exists in my opinion. As a matter of interest - and given I looked at this before - why do you endorse loathing her parents?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 19 Feb 19 3.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
As a matter of interest - and given I looked at this before - why do you endorse loathing her parents? Because her father was an extremist and did not pay sufficient attention to his daughter to notice that she was being radicalised to the extent that she was. If your 15 year old child runs off to join scum like IS then something has gone seriously wrong with your parenting skills. And you need loathing accordingly.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.