UK-born Islamic State recruit can return from Syria to challenge citizenship removal

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, kingdong said:

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

I have made no comment on the matter, but it appears the dangers of a government being able to remove an individual’s citizenship and banish them might be dawning on you.

[kingdong]

19 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

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

 

 

We used to be until we joined the eu.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

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

On your first point,perhaps she did perhaps she didn,t what she did do was actively join a terrorist organisation.on your second and third points the poster did not once mention war.

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

I know how the UK court system works. That's why I'm glad she's had her citizenship removed, and I'm glad the UK authorities are making it as difficult as possible for her to appeal. 

Because if she wins her appeal she'll be back in the UK and facing judicial and penal systems that are not equipped for protecting the public against the IS terror threat. 

 

Yes, those systems need to be fixed so they do protect us. But while we wait for that I'll settle for what we're doing now, i.e. keeping her well away from our streets. 

 

P.S. no need for the insults - this is not the Brexit thread. 

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

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.

 

"Well first it needs to be shown the govt decision was legal."

Unfortunately this is true

"The court decision is that she cannot return to have her case heard. It does not say she cannot have her case heard."

I know

 

"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."

 

A mistake? She didn't steal a couple of Creme Eggs from the corner shop. She illegally left the country to join the most vicious terrorist organisation on the planet. And while I accept a 15 year old girl may have been groomed to some extent, she's now a 21 year old woman who has served ISIS, been around for blood curdling executions, seen skips full of severed heads, and had years of anti-west rhetoric pumped into her. You think she's the same as your average naughty juvenile? Let her hang out around your kids then. 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

I know how the UK court system works. That's why I'm glad she's had her citizenship removed, and I'm glad the UK authorities are making it as difficult as possible for her to appeal. 

Because if she wins her appeal she'll be back in the UK and facing judicial and penal systems that are not equipped for protecting the public against the IS terror threat. 

 

Yes, those systems need to be fixed so they do protect us. But while we wait for that I'll settle for what we're doing now, i.e. keeping her well away from our streets. 

 

P.S. no need for the insults - this is not the Brexit thread. 

The UK’s police, security services and judicial system have already dealt with the return of hundreds of people returning from fighting with and against ISIS.

 

Now a young woman has you shaking in your slippers.

 

 

[Scott]

Troll post removed.  This is a discussion forum.  

 

[7by7]

On 2/27/2021 at 3:21 PM, kingdong said:

On 2/27/2021 at 3:00 PM, 7by7 said:

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

 

 

We used to be until we joined the eu.

 

What has the EU got to do with it? Unless you are saying that you think the EU forced this decision upon the Supreme Court!

 

If so, you are totally wrong. 

 

Although prior to Brexit decisions of the UK's Supreme Court (or Law Lords before that) could be appealed to the European Court of Justice, that was only if the case involved EU rules and regulations. Which this case obviously does not.

 

I don't know if Begum can appeal to the ECtHR; but that is not an EU organisation and never has been. It was established by the Council Of Europe of which the UK was a founder member in 1949.

 

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

What has the EU got to do with it? Unless you are saying that you think the EU forced this decision upon the Supreme Court!

 

If so, you are totally wrong. 

 

Although prior to Brexit decisions of the UK's Supreme Court (or Law Lords before that) could be appealed to the European Court of Justice, that was only if the case involved EU rules and regulations. Which this case obviously does not.

 

I don't know if Begum can appeal to the ECtHR; but that is not an EU organisation and never has been. It was established by the Council Of Europe of which the UK was a founder member in 1949.

 

Supposition.

[7by7]

1 minute ago, kingdong said:

Supposition.

 

So what has the EU got to do with this topic?

 

Why did you bring them into it?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

So what has the EU got to do with this topic?

 

Why did you bring them into it?

 

Maybe he's a closet remainer.

[polpott]

2 hours ago, kingdong said:

Supposition.

No its facts, something you have a problem with as you only seem capable of spouting rhetoric.

[kingdong]

4 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

So what has the EU got to do with this topic?

 

Why did you bring them into it?

Raising a valid point.

[kingdong]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

No its facts, something you have a problem with as you only seem capable of spouting rhetoric.

Since when were ifs,buts and maybes facts?

[katana]

On 2/28/2021 at 12:58 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

On 2/27/2021 at 5:21 PM, CG1 Blue said:

I know how the UK court system works. That's why I'm glad she's had her citizenship removed, and I'm glad the UK authorities are making it as difficult as possible for her to appeal. 

Because if she wins her appeal she'll be back in the UK and facing judicial and penal systems that are not equipped for protecting the public against the IS terror threat. 

 

Yes, those systems need to be fixed so they do protect us. But while we wait for that I'll settle for what we're doing now, i.e. keeping her well away from our streets. 

 

P.S. no need for the insults - this is not the Brexit thread. 

The UK’s police, security services and judicial system have already dealt with the return of hundreds of people returning from fighting with and against ISIS.

 

Now a young woman has you shaking in your slippers.

Not dealt  with them very well it seems. Off the top of my head, returning ISIS/Jihadi fighters who went on to kill in the UK:

Salman Abedi, the 2017 Manchester Arena Bomber, fought for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a Salafi jihadist organisation proscribed by the United Nations. He also met with members of the ISIS Battar brigade in Sabratha, Libya and continued to be in contact with the group upon his return to the UK. An imam at Didsbury mosque recalled that Abedi looked at him "with hate" after he preached against ISIS and Ansar al-Sharia in 2015.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Arena_bombing

 

Ahmed Hassan, the 2017 Parsons Green tube bomber, arrived in the UK in late 2015 claiming to be under 18, at a time when the UK government had shortly before instituted more generous rules on accepting asylum applications from unaccompanied minors. At a January 2016 immigration interview, Hassan told officials he had been in contact with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and been trained to kill. Hassan also stated during the interview that he blamed the United Kingdom for his father having died in Iraq. While his asylum application was being processed, he was placed in foster care with a highly experienced elderly foster couple who were given no hint of his extremist links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsons_Green_train_bombing

 

Khairi Saadallah, the perpetrator of the Forbury Gardens Reading stabbings in 2020, had come to the United Kingdom from Libya in 2012 where he was part of Ansar al-Sharia, a group now proscribed in the UK, a Salafist Islamist militia and Al-Qaeda-aligned group that advocated the implementation of strict Sharia law across Libya. He had stated falsely in his asylum application that he was not involved in combat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Reading_stabbings

[upu2]

When was this news published as only within the last couple of days it was reported she had been refused entry by the Supreme Court

[bkkcanuck8]

On 7/16/2020 at 6:54 PM, tribalfusion001 said:

Disgusting, should be shot, ISIS traitor.

Yes, but the decision should be made by the courts... and that is in the UK since he was a citizen by birth.   I am against removing citizenship by birth as that is a dangerous route to go down... I am fine with charging someone and remanding them if they are a danger and be given their date in court (and if the country still has execution as a punishment then so be it)... but I suspect that the treason laws might have not been updated to include this case (not knowing the UK law on it - many countries have it be a war-time only charge of treason - i.e. a declared war and supporting the enemy; espionage though is not limited to wartime in any country I know of).  Guess you should have dropped a bomb on him while he was there - like the US does ????

[Salerno]

9 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

since he was a citizen by birth

 

10 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

you should have dropped a bomb on him while he was there

 

"He" is a "she".

[bkkcanuck8]

16 minutes ago, Salerno said:

 

 

"He" is a "she".

ok, if that is the pronoun they want to use then who am I to argue...

 

bombs work just as well for shes....

[Scott]

Troll posts removed.  

 

[Chomper Higgot]

On 2/27/2021 at 10:21 PM, kingdong said:

We used to be until we joined the eu.

You back on your fixation again.

 

As has been explained, this woman’s case has absolutely nothing at all to do with the EU or the UK’s membership of/exit from the EU.

 

 

[Kwasaki]

4 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

ok, if that is the pronoun they want to use then who am I to argue...

 

bombs work just as well for shes....

You could argue both ways with people here who say she should return saying the UK is unjust.

 

Then again like you say bombs work just as well for she's and just as well when there strapped underneath what Muslim women wear.  

 

How does anyone know her mind and what she might do when she returns. 

 

[bkkcanuck8]

Just now, Kwasaki said:

You could argue both ways with people here who say she should return saying the UK is unjust.

 

Then again like you say bombs work just as well for she's and just as well when there strapped underneath what Muslim women wear.  

 

How does anyone know her mind and what she might do when she returns. 

 

Well, to be quite honest she is small fry - you have a lot more to worry about people that already are in the UK and have been radicalized.   So far she has shown no inclination to be an active combatant.  If she broke UK law, then she should face a court for those charges - but I view citizenship by birth as something that is an inalienable right.  If you gained citizenship by naturalization by violating the law then citizenship can be revoked.

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

she is small fry

2 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Well, to be quite honest she is small fry -

you have a lot more to worry about people that already are in the UK and have been radicalized.  

So far she has shown no inclination to be an active combatant. 

If she broke UK law, then she should face a court for those charges -

but I view citizenship by birth as something that is an inalienable right. 

If you gained citizenship by naturalization by violating the law then citizenship can be revoked.

 

Everyone has there view.

Mine is I'm glad the court made there decision.

[kingdong]

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You back on your fixation again.

 

As has been explained, this woman’s case has absolutely nothing at all to do with the EU or the UK’s membership of/exit from the EU.

 

 

And as its been explained to you,she had no respect or loyalty to the laws of her country, ( past tense )shes s**t her bed,now she has to lie in it,the uk is now independent of the eu ( a fact it would appear some sections of society have difficulty accepting )also i am not " back on my fixtation" i initially asked a question on here regarding a hypothetical scenario,which was answered.consequently the uk can now make its own long overdue laws up regarding safety and security.

[Chomper Higgot]

14 minutes ago, kingdong said:

And as its been explained to you,she had no respect or loyalty to the laws of her country, ( past tense )shes s**t her bed,now she has to lie in it,the uk is now independent of the eu ( a fact it would appear some sections of society have difficulty accepting )also i am not " back on my fixtation" i initially asked a question on here regarding a hypothetical scenario,which was answered.consequently the uk can now make its own long overdue laws up regarding safety and security.

The UK has always been able to make its own laws regarding safety and security.

 

 

The UK’s membership and/or the UK leaving the EU has absolutely no bearing on this woman’s case.

 

Which has been explained to you a number of times.

[kingdong]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The UK has always been able to make its own laws regarding safety and security.

 

 

The UK’s membership and/or the UK leaving the EU has absolutely no bearing on this woman’s case.

 

Which has been explained to you a number of times.

On your first point how could the uk have made its own laws while we had freedom of movement in operation? The majority of the uks mps loved the eu as they could sit scratching theirselves,dreaming about their future in a well paid position in the eu,instead of actually doing the job they were paid to,this was proved by the antics following the peoples vote when the gravy train hit the buffers..i am obviously trying to flog a dead horse regarding trying to reason with you,so in future won,t bother.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, kingdong said:

On your first point how could the uk have made its own laws while we had freedom of movement in operation? The majority of the uks mps loved the eu as they could sit scratching theirselves,dreaming about their future in a well paid position in the eu,instead of actually doing the job they were paid to,this was proved by the antics following the peoples vote when the gravy train hit the buffers..i am obviously trying to flog a dead horse regarding trying to reason with you,so in future won,t bother.

Once again, nothing at all to do with this woman’s case or this thread.

[kingdong]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again, nothing at all to do with this woman’s case or this thread.

Neither is my "fixation" if i want to be psyco-anaylised i.ll go to a professional,in the meantime stay on topic.

[7by7]

On 3/2/2021 at 4:48 PM, kingdong said:

On 3/2/2021 at 12:28 PM, 7by7 said:

 

So what has the EU got to do with this topic?

 

Why did you bring them into it?

Raising a valid point.

This is not a valid point; the issue has nothing to do with the EU.

 

A member state's courts are, and always have been, independent of the EU. Except for matters relating to EU rules and regulations which individuals or member governments can, after the case has been heard in the member state's highest court, take to the ECJ. The commission itself can also take a member state to the ECJ if it receives a complaint that member state is not applying EU rules or regulations; but this happens rarely as most such complaints are resolved without going to court.

 

Except for matters relating to EU membership and treaties, laws made by a member state, including those relating to security and anti terrorism, have nothing to do with the EU.

 

Laws such as the UK Parliament's various anti terrorism Acts? All passed without any need to seek any sort of 'permission' from the EU!

 

In a reply to @Chomper Higgot you said

20 hours ago, kingdong said:

On your first point how could the uk have made its own laws while we had freedom of movement in operation?

 

Freedom of movement plays no part at all in this. Since the principle of freedom of movement was first introduced in 1964 member states have had the right to limit it on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health (source).

 

When all the different directives on freedom of movement were combined into one in 2004, this was incorporated into that new directive (source).

 

20 hours ago, kingdong said:

The majority of the uks mps loved the eu as they could sit scratching theirselves,dreaming about their future in a well paid position in the eu,instead of actually doing the job they were paid to,this was proved by the antics following the peoples vote when the gravy train hit the buffers..

 

Do you really believe this pony? Tell us; how many ex UK MPs have gone onto high paid, or any, EU jobs when they left Parliament. There's Kinnock and you could stretch it to include Ashdown in his role in Bosnia; who else?

 

20 hours ago, kingdong said:

i am obviously trying to flog a dead horse regarding trying to reason with you,so in future won,t bother.

If you want to present cogent arguments in order to reason with anyone, you should find out the facts first! 

 

Your posts I've quoted here contain none. As do many others of yours.