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

[nausea]

She was 15 when she made this disastrous decision, motivated, no doubt, by the most altruistic of motives, that's all I can say really. After that life took over. We all live and die by our early decisions, the reason we don't give children adulthood until 18 at least. 

[kingdong]

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

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

 

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).

 

 

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?

 

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.

 

12 hours ago, 7by7 said:

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

 

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).

 

 

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?

 

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.

See my earlier post on not responding to you,if my posts upset you so much then put me on ignore .

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, kingdong said:

 

See my earlier post on not responding to you,if my posts upset you so much then put me on ignore .

Why don't you just try to argue the facts in stead of the poster.

Please state what the connection is between this case and the EU. Quite a few times, not to say many, people have explained to you there is none, all you have done so far is state 'yes, there is, without any argument at all. So please argue the facts.

[7by7]

11 hours ago, kingdong said:

 

See my earlier post on not responding to you

 Yet you did!

 

11 hours ago, kingdong said:

if my posts upset you so much then put me on ignore .

Why would anyone's, let alone your, posts upset me?

 

It seems 'tis you who is upset at being proven wrong so often, and not just by me. Simple solution to that for you:

• know the difference between fact and opinion,
• don't post nonsense as fact and
• if posting facts, check those facts before posting.

As I neither fear nor am upset by other people's posts, I never put anyone on ignore.

[kingdong]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

Why don't you just try to argue the facts in stead of the poster.

Please state what the connection is between this case and the EU. Quite a few times, not to say many, people have explained to you there is none, all you have done so far is state 'yes, there is, without any argument at all. So please argue the facts.

I,m not wasting my time putting dodgy " facts " in such as highly biased sources as from the likes of" aunty beeb " and the bastion of free press the guardian.who are these people " explaining  " to me? I am sick of attempting to justifie responding to questions i ask that " people " try to turn into statements,points and opinions i make taken out of context and " people " putting words in my mouth.and as for your "advice " on how to write my posts if you find them not politically correct enough for your taste please feel free to ignore them  as i do to the majority of your posts and put me on ignore.i would also like to point out in the 80,s i worked for a national newspaper in fleet street where between making fleeting appearances,propping up the bar in the hoop and grapes,and attending the demonstrations at wapping,used to read every daily news paper ( except the ft) every time i graced the premises with my prescence.