Just now, polpott said:

Because the court case is current. Besides its a fun thread that allows the alt right racists vent their spleens.

What ignorants are you English besides the race card has already been played.

The parents should be deported as well.

How can a 15 year old girl leave UK without parental consent.

57 minutes ago, polpott said:

Because the court case is current. Besides its a fun thread that allows the alt right racists vent their spleens

The highest court in the land has made its decision so how can the case be current?shes not a british citizen anymore period.so anyone who dosen,t agree with your views is an "alt right racist "? ( do you mean all right? ),

5 hours ago, Mavideol said:

the answer is No .... you are mixing apples and oranges

We,re talking about human rights,not the eu,s argricultural policy.

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

What ignorants are you English besides the race card has already been played.

The parents should be deported as well.

How can a 15 year old girl leave UK without parental consent.

She stole her older sister’s passport and used that to travel.

 

Britain played a pivotal roll in putting an end to the last European regime to engage in collective punishment, but here you are advocating for its reintroduction.

 

Hang your head in shame.

 

29 minutes ago, kingdong said:

The highest court in the land has made its decision so how can the case be current?shes not a british citizen anymore period.so anyone who dosen,t agree with your views is an "alt right racist "? ( do you mean all right? ),

 

Putting aside your repeated sensitivities, you clearly do not understating that her case remains ‘current’ while ever there remains a path to appeal.

 

 

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

What ignorants are you English besides the race card has already been played.

The parents should be deported as well.

How can a 15 year old girl leave UK without parental consent.

 

Negligent Parenting = Deportation. Says poster.

Now the facts are that she ran away from home with a stolen ID. Guess there would be a fair number of British parents deported if that was an acceptable criteria.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She stole her older sister’s passport and used that to travel.

 

Britain played a pivotal roll in putting an end to the last European regime to engage in collective punishment, but here you are advocating for its reintroduction.

 

Hang your head in shame.

 

And i watched her interview in syria some time ago,no remorse about what she,d done,bragging about how observing a dustbin full of human heads had made her a "stronger person" and you wish to see her unleashed into society? Hang your head in shame.

I hold no brief for any terrorist; right wing or left wing, Islamist or Islamaphobic, Irish nationalist or Ulster Loyalist etc. 

 

However, the UK government can now effectively remove a person's British citizenship and prevent them from appealing against that removal in a British court. This is a dangerous precedent. 

 

I wonder how long before future government's, right or left, will use it against their political opponents.

 

Couldn't happen here? I hope not; but this ruling makes it that much easier.

 

People like ISIS want to destroy our democracy and the rights we hold dear. In my opinion, this ruling has only helped bring that despicable aim closer to reality.

2 minutes ago, kingdong said:

And i watched her interview in syria some time ago,no remorse about what she,d done,bragging about how observing a dustbin full of human heads had made her a "stronger person" and you wish to see her unleashed into society? Hang your head in shame.

 

Who here has said that they "wish to see her unleashed into society?"

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Who here has said that they "wish to see her unleashed into society?"

No one has to, their actions and support for a traitor to her country do that.

Just now, kingdong said:

No one has to, their actions and support for a traitor to her country do that.

 

What support for her acts has been shown here; either by word or deed?

6 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

What support for her acts has been shown here; either by word or deed?

 

@kingdong, all your laugh emoji shows is your inability to even attempt any justification of your remarks.

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

What support for her acts has been shown here; either by word or deed?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Putting aside your repeated sensitivities, you clearly do not understating that her case remains ‘current’ while ever there remains a path to appeal.

 

 

 

The highest court in the land has made its decision if you havent noticed.also i,m not a word nazi but can,t make any sense of your post, "you clearly.do not understating that her case" ?

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

@kingdong, all your laugh emoji shows is your inability to even attempt any justification of your remarks.

No,the emoji shows my opinion regarding your query,if you cannot understand i would be clearly  flogging a dead horse trying to explain again,will not be responding to any other requests of this nature.

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

What support for her acts has been shown here; either by word or deed?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

Putting aside your repeated sensitivities, you clearly do not understating that her case remains ‘current’ while ever there remains a path to appeal.

 

 

 

The highest court in the land has made its decision if you havent noticed.

 

Yes, I noticed. That's why i commented on it!

 

But commenting that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent is not expressing support for Begum's actions, nor those of another terrorist or terrorist supporter.

 

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

also i,m not a word nazi but can,t make any sense of your post, "you clearly.do not understating that her case" ?

My post? No, not my post even though you included that post in your quote of mine!

 

Understating is a real word. I suggest that you first look up it's meaning and then if still confused direct your enquiry to the person who used it, not I.

3 minutes ago, kingdong said:

No,the emoji shows my opinion regarding your query,if you cannot understand i would be clearly  flogging a dead horse trying to explain again,will not be responding to any other requests of this nature.

 I see that you have resorted to your usual tactics; make an absurd accusation and then refuse to explain, let alone justify, it when challenged.

 

Good day.

5 hours ago, xylophone said:

So being a traitor to one's own country and going to fight for the enemy, who had executed British citizens, is okay?

 

And for her to say that the Manchester bombing which killed 22 people was "justified retaliation" for Syria air strikes, and then to go on to say that she was a "poster girl" for ISIS recruitment, and that she wanted her first son to become a terrorist, is abhorrent.

 

She should not be allowed back into the country, and indeed if she was, it should be to face a life sentence in jail – – and that's too good for her.

Did she fight for anyone, kill anyone? What war, did uk declare war?

39 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Who here has said that they "wish to see her unleashed into society?"

While people haven't said this directly, the fact is it only takes a clever barrister to get her a short sentence, and then a clever Shamima to convince authorities she has been de-radicalised. Then she would be 'unleashed into society'. Free to mix among our families, our children. 

The decisions to remove her British citizenship and then not allow her back in the UK to fight the case might be iffy on some legal or moral level. But I'm glad the UK authorities are playing hardball now after years of letting these highly dangerous hate filled individuals slip through the net. 

 

One less potential terrorist on our streets is good news in my book, however they make it happen! 

 

32 minutes ago, kingdong said:

The highest court in the land has made its decision if you havent noticed.also i,m not a word nazi but can,t make any sense of your post, "you clearly.do not understating that her case" ?

And you dont understand law. They didnt say she cannot appeal it, they said she does not need to return to the uk to appeal it.

57 minutes ago, kingdong said:

And i watched her interview in syria some time ago,no remorse about what she,d done,bragging about how observing a dustbin full of human heads had made her a "stronger person" and you wish to see her unleashed into society? Hang your head in shame.

Comprehension not your thing then.

 

When have I ever said I ‘wish to see her unleashed into society’?

 

Here is a clue, I haven’t.

 

My position is she should be tried for her crimes in an open English court before a jury of her peers.

 

Retract your unfounded accusation or hang your head in shame.

Many lawyers have been highly critical of this ruling as it seems motivated more by politics than law. The justices say that the home secretary’s decision should be respected because if the electorate disagree with them they can be removed.

 

But: Shamima Begum ruling sets dangerous precedent, say legal experts

Quote

The supreme court justices argue that the right to a fair hearing does not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public.

But this only stands if the decision was based solely on national security concerns, and not politics.

So if, as the justices suggest, it is ultimately for the electorate to judge these decisions, then voters might ask: do they trust the home secretary to impartially balance human rights considerations with national security concerns and not let politics interfere?

 

Shamima Begum loses case in Supreme Court

Quote

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment reads as a deliberately very narrow one. This is hardly surprising in the current highly politicised circumstances, but it is disappointing for public lawyers and perhaps public law. General principles are where possible eschewed and the case is not sent back to be re-heard on any of the arguable points.

 

One also has to ask, as lawyers in both articles and many others have done, why Begum has been treated differently to the many others whom the security services have returned to the UK from Syria?

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

I hold no brief for any terrorist; right wing or left wing, Islamist or Islamaphobic, Irish nationalist or Ulster Loyalist etc. 

 

However, the UK government can now effectively remove a person's British citizenship and prevent them from appealing against that removal in a British court. This is a dangerous precedent. 

 

I wonder how long before future government's, right or left, will use it against their political opponents.

 

Couldn't happen here? I hope not; but this ruling makes it that much easier.

 

People like ISIS want to destroy our democracy and the rights we hold dear. In my opinion, this ruling has only helped bring that despicable aim closer to reality.

 

I wonder how long before future government's, right, left or religious fundamentalist will use it against their political opponents/non believers.

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

While people haven't said this directly, the fact is it only takes a clever barrister to get her a short sentence, and then a clever Shamima to convince authorities she has been de-radicalised. Then she would be 'unleashed into society'. Free to mix among our families, our children. 

The decisions to remove her British citizenship and then not allow her back in the UK to fight the case might be iffy on some legal or moral level. But I'm glad the UK authorities are playing hardball now after years of letting these highly dangerous hate filled individuals slip through the net. 

 

One less potential terrorist on our streets is good news in my book, however they make it happen! 

 

Well first it needs to be shown the govt decision was legal. Or do you think the govt can decide what it likes with no thought of the law.

 

 If you dont like the law then try and change it. The court decision is that she cannot return to have her case heard. It does not say she cannot have her case heard.

 

A 15 year old girl made a mistake, she could well be among you soon, better go hide from all those juveniles that has you scared.

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Comprehension not your thing then.

 

When have I ever said I ‘wish to see her unleashed into society’?

 

Here is a clue, I haven’t.

 

My position is she should be tried for her crimes in an open English court before a jury of her peers.

 

Retract your unfounded accusation or hang your head in shame.

Was referring to your actions and possible consequences,not your words,i never said you wished to see her unleashed into society,i asked you a question,this trying to put words into peoples mouths is getting rather tiresome.

We used to be rightly proud that here in the UK the judiciary  was independent of the executive.

 

This ruling is another erosion of that independence.

8 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

While people haven't said this directly, the fact is it only takes a clever barrister to get her a short sentence, and then a clever Shamima to convince authorities she has been de-radicalised. Then she would be 'unleashed into society'. Free to mix among our families, our children. 

The decisions to remove her British citizenship and then not allow her back in the UK to fight the case might be iffy on some legal or moral level. But I'm glad the UK authorities are playing hardball now after years of letting these highly dangerous hate filled individuals slip through the net. 

 

One less potential terrorist on our streets is good news in my book, however they make it happen! 

 

You forgot something, people are tried in court before juries who get to hear the evidence and legal arguments against and for the defendant.

 

Its not a matter of ‘clever barristers’ go in any case do not decide on sentencing.

 

Your lack of understanding of this basic fact of  how court trials are conducted is astounding, either because you simply don’t understand how court trials are conducted or because you willfully misrepresent how court trials are conducted. I suspect the latter.

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

I wonder how long before future government's, right, left or religious fundamentalist will use it against their political opponents/non believers.

Non believers?do you mean infidels? A chilling prediction to be sure.

4 minutes ago, kingdong said:

this trying to put words into peoples mouths is getting rather tiresome.

Then you should stop doing it!

 

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Comprehension not your thing then.

 

When have I ever said I ‘wish to see her unleashed into society’?

 

Here is a clue, I haven’t.

 

My position is she should be tried for her crimes in an open English court before a jury of her peers.

 

Retract your unfounded accusation or hang your head in shame.

 

"Retract your unfounded accusation or hang your head in shame."

 

Barring that, handbags at dawn. Or flogging.

 

 

4 minutes ago, kingdong said:

Was referring to your actions and possible consequences,not your words,i never said you wished to see her unleashed into society,i asked you a question,this trying to put words into peoples mouths is getting rather tiresome.

“i never said you wished to see her unleashed into society”

 

This wasn’t posted by you then:

 

1 hour ago, kingdong said:

And i watched her interview in syria some time ago,no remorse about what she,d done,bragging about how observing a dustbin full of human heads had made her a "stronger person" and you wish to see her unleashed into society? Hang your head in shame.

 

Disgraceful.