Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Observer II

Should she be "rescued"

Recommended Posts

It was her choice to go.

Given that she shows no remorse or even regret for her time spent there i personally would say no. (what i actually think would not be allowed under board rules.)

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should she be allowed back for the unborn child's sake but be placed in immediate custody ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who have left the UK to fight against us / support our enemies deserve absolutely nothing from us. They are traitors to our nation and our way of life. They can never be trusted, no matter how much they(supposedly) repent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Press, IS members, returning to the UK have been placed on (prevent) counter-brainwashing programmes, so not charged or jailed. Meanwhile, the Yanks, who claim the Brits are too soft with these people, have said, that they will intern any (incl Brits) captured IS members in Guantanamo.  (BBC Ceefax)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Davy51 said:

Should she be allowed back for the unborn child's sake but be placed in immediate custody ?

The head of MI6 has warned that the Islamic State group is reorganising for more attacks despite its military defeat in Syria.

Alex Younger, the UK's intelligence chief, also told of his concern about jihadists returning to Europe with "dangerous" skills and connections.

They should expect to be investigated and possibly prosecuted, he said.

His comments come after Shamima Begum, a teenager who ran away to join IS, said she wants to return to the UK.

We need to be aware these are not idle comments.

We need to learn lessons from the very sad atrocities that France and Belgium have suffered in the recent past.

No more liberal hand wringing !

Wake up and smell the coffee !

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right Latch, but our hand wringing liberal politicians are already squirming with excuses for these nutters.  The same people who demand votes for sixteen year olds, now saying she was groomed at a vunerable age. So even if they imprison these fanatics, they just turn prison into a university for their doctrine and infect others.  Seems the best solution would be to hand them over to the Yanks, who can lock them up in Guantanamo and throw away the key - sorted.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is surprising that Britain doesn't have the facilities to put proven & potential terrorists away for a very long time . Terrorism is a crime against the country & society & UK governments can't all hope that British terrorists are captured by the likes of America or Turkey in order to deliver the justice that our legal system is failing to do.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this instance Dave, I'm happy for the UK to sub-contract to the Yanks; and while they're at it, they can have the rest they've got on these phoney PREVENT programmes.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is surprising that Britain doesn't have the facilities to put proven & potential terrorists away for a very long time .

Some would argue that we have that facility it is called termination. They could be quietly "disappeared" easily enough and the subsequent investigation into the circumstances needn't take up too much time. (not that i would in anyway advocate such a thing).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so we have , up to now, suggestions of life imprisonment outside of our own jurisdiction and State sanctioned murder.  Thankfully time seems to have mellowed the crazies on here, when she and her friends left for Syria a poster suggested they should be caged and burned alive in public.   I'm interested to know what her actual crimes are? Whatever they are I am sure there is a law under which she can be prosecuted legally by our courts.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No doubt she will be given a really good talking to, and spend time on the naughty step;  while her ISIS mates think up some mass killing sprees in the UK.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 12:56 PM, P J said:

so we have , up to now, suggestions of life imprisonment outside of our own jurisdiction and State sanctioned murder.  Thankfully time seems to have mellowed the crazies on here, when she and her friends left for Syria a poster suggested they should be caged and burned alive in public.   I'm interested to know what her actual crimes are? Whatever they are I am sure there is a law under which she can be prosecuted legally by our courts.

 

I'm not sure what her actual crimes were or are on paper PJ  other than her fleeing to join ISIS and supporting their atrocities. 

Did you watch the quite lengthy interview of her that has been publicised over the past few days?  She clearly shows no remorse for leaving to join ISIS  nor did she show any emotion whatsoever regarding the beheading of people or the bombing of innocent people and children Manchester and other places other than to say she believed it was right...life for a life and all that.  The only reason she wants to come back here is because she's now alone over there and has a baby who she 'wants a better life for'.  Did she ever want to come back with her other two children she had over there who have sadly died .  I say 'sadly' as it's not the kids faults and it is sad that because of HER they were born and died there in a land of evil.  I have no problem with her little baby coming back to the UK but NO WAY SHOULD SHE EVER BE LET BACK IN....SHE IS CLEARLY STILL OF THE MINDSET THAT WHAT TERRORISTS DO IS OK.     

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I expected., it looks like the liberal, bleeding heart lawyers and politicians will get her back to the UK; Javid has already backed down.  But we shouldn't be surprised when HMG has already allowed over 40 back.  So, assuming our intelligence services believe any of them to represent an ongoing risk to the rest of us; they'll be placed under surveillance, with three shifts of agents watching them 24/7, at a cost to the tax-payer. If they go to prison to indoctrinate others or reaffirm their own indoctrination - again a cost to the tax-payer. Meanwhile, any single mothers will no doubt be entitled to a home and benefits - again courtesy of the tax-payer. Rather than "PREVENT", perhaps we could employ the Chinese system of hard line counter brain washing (re-education ! )to completely eradicate their superstitious nonsense ?   

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Rather than "PREVENT", perhaps we could employ the Chinese system of hard line counter brain washing (re-education ! )to completely eradicate their superstitious nonsense ?   

Not that i don't disagree with you obs, but some would argue that you could apply that to just about every religion.

Religions tend to say that "Our god good every other god is bad and should be ignored and their followers converted or eradicated".

I am no longer a very religious person as even religions themselves split into various sects who have a tendency to then argue that their particular take on things is the right one..

I did see that it has been argued that removing her citizenship is a breach of her human rights. The only human right that applies is the right to take responsibility for your own actions.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The British government believes that she is entitled to claim Bangladeshi citizenship and so depriving her of UK citizenship does not breach her human rights. The Constitution of Bangladesh invokes the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights  which forbids arbitrary removal of citizenship. The Bangladeshi authorities have said they will not allow her into that country but have not said that she is not eligible to Bangladeshi citizenship (that I have seen anyway). Since the UK is acting in accordance with law and she is a potential dual national the UK is acting within the convention but Bangladesh has so far not acted within the convention, because at the time of their announcement the UK had made her a single rather than dual national, and without due process the Bangladeshi decision was arbitrary. Any breach of human rights is occurring in Bangladesh and not the UK. No doubt the ONCHR will add it to the list of Human rights concerns that they address in the investigation announced in 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sid, if we had a solely evidence and science based education system in the first place, religion wouldn't be included, but nowadays would be replaced by gender identity nonesense !                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Con,   Hope your legalese proves correct.  If she actually married the father of her child, it would appear that she could claim Dutch citizenship.                                                                                                       What appears to undermine this affair, is the fact that HMG has already allowed over 40 ISIS supporters back into the UK, not sure if any have even been charged with a criminal offence ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC news said yesterday that because the father is Dutch the child will be eligible for Dutch citizenship. Perhaps the rest of her family would like to join her in Holland.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding was that she was heavily pregnant at the time she was interviewed for tv.

Now has she had the child since that interview or had she already had the child prior to the interview. That information is a bit vague in the reports shown on tv.

If the latter then she has lied about being pregnant at the time of the interview, which then begs the question what else is she lying about?

The child could have dual citizenship of British and Dutch and also a triple nationality of British, Dutch and the country of birth. ( as if life was not complicated enough)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As she had dual British/Bangladesh citizenship, the child could have quadruple citizenship. A bit of a poser when deciding which country's football team he wants to play for 🤔.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/17/2019 at 2:16 PM, Milky said:

It is the sort of wooly answer you give. 

The pub was a popular until it was converted to a restaraunt so how about a pub, or a house, or several houses, or apartments or shop, or offices, I have seen all of these converted from pubs. You need to get out more PJ. 

 

 

22 hours ago, Davy51 said:

The BBC news said yesterday that because the father is Dutch the child will be eligible for Dutch citizenship. Perhaps the rest of her family would like to join her in Holland.

But would she and her kin be welcome in the Land of Windmills and Tulips ... I think it would be a case of NIMBY ... And who could blame them ?  

Related image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As this saga rumbles on, liberals are now claiming the excuse that she was "immature" at 16;  the same kind of people who want 16 year old's to have a vote -  more cakeism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a piece on TV about the camp, that's housing thousands of ISIS camp followers; most of whom still cling to their perverted religion, thus presenting a continued terror risk. Now, whilst Dianne Abbot and the rest of the bleeding heart PC liberals wring their hands, trying to bring them to the UK, and the UK Gov increase spending on Syria, we have the prospect of this sore on humanity continuing to fester.  Clearly a need for a re-education and de-brainwashing programme, before any thought of moving them; perhaps Assad could do it ? !

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...