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

[sungod]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Putting aside she was a captured prisoner of war and hence shooting her would have been a war crime, in what twist of logic can she be a traitor if she is not a citizen?

 

 

She is not a prisoner of war, ISIS are a terrorist organisation.

 

She betrayed the UK by becoming a terrorist, joining ISIS, becoming a threat to the UK therefore they removed her citizenship.

 

Quite simple really..

Edited July 17, 2020 by sungod

[hotandsticky]

1 minute ago, sungod said:

She is not a prisoner of war, ISIS are a terrorist organisation.

 

She betrayed the UK by becoming a terrorist, joining ISIS, therefore they removed her citizenship.

 

Quite simple really..

 

 

 

Obviously not.............................................. to a Judge.

[pacovl46]

5 minutes ago, herfiehandbag said:

Without a trial?

 

She was stripped of her nationality by an administrative process. That process can be appealed through the courts, this is the first stage in that appeal process. 

 

The views which she has expressed are appalling, but they are the views of a teenager, who through her actions has demonstrated naivity and immaturity. Those views will most probably change with maturity.

 

She is as entitled to due process as you or I would be. The judges have acknowledged that. Very probably they find her views (then expressed) as abhorrent as you and I do, but they must set that aside and apply the law unpalatable as that may be!

 

If we ignore that we have sunk to the low of ISIS.

Sometimes you have to fight evil with its own weapons to be able to beat it! In other words, you have to stoop down to their level. 
 

She’s gonna be all tears and remorseful in court and then she’s gonna get her citizenship reinstated and then she’s gonna get a slap on the wrist and that’s gonna be it! 
 

Do you think that’s justified for what ISIS has done? Yeah, she might not have been the one pulling the trigger, but she was there and she supported and condoned what they did to countless innocent people, and now that, for whatever reason, she suddenly moved over to the receiiving end of the ISIS stick she wants to go back home to mama and the civilized world! Well, guess what? Everything in life has consequences and she crossed a massive line by joining a terror organization and she needs to pay for it big time because if she gets only a slap on the wrist it will send a bad signal to all the other idiots who are thinking about joining ISIS! Her sentence needs to be really harsh!

[sungod]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

She has never been an ‘enemy combatant’.

 

Fair one, just someone who ran away and joined the most barbaric terrorist organization in the world and showed no remorse for it,

[sungod]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not sure on what basis you claim ‘she lost rights’ to protections under the law.

 

The law isn’t supposed to represent ‘its people’, that’s the job of MPs and Government who are also subject to the law.

 

 

The Government are representing its people, it seemed a very popular action to remove the citizenship of someone who actively supported some of the most obscene terrorist acts ever seen.

[TopDeadSenter]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

If the decision to strip was lawful she will be expelled

Nonsense. She would NEVER be expelled/deported again from the UK. You know this.

[RuamRudy]

15 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Sometimes you have to fight evil with its own weapons to be able to beat it! In other words, you have to stoop down to their level. 

No you don't. That is merely a trite, empty string of words which, in that order, have no meaning whatsoever outside Hollywood movies and the sabre rattling rhetoric of armchair generals. 

 

19 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

She’s gonna be all tears and remorseful in court and then she’s gonna get her citizenship reinstated and then she’s gonna get a slap on the wrist and that’s gonna be it! 

Do you have such little faith in the UK courts that you think an immature, poorly educated girl from a council estate is going to be able to run rings round them?

 

20 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Do you think that’s justified for what ISIS has done? Yeah, she might not have been the one pulling the trigger, but she was there and she supported and condoned what they did to countless innocent people, and now that, for whatever reason, she suddenly moved over to the receiiving end of the ISIS stick she wants to go back home to mama and the civilized world! Well, guess what? Everything in life has consequences and she crossed a massive line by joining a terror organization and she needs to pay for it big time because if she gets only a slap on the wrist it will send a bad signal to all the other idiots who are thinking about joining ISIS! Her sentence needs to be really harsh!

Nobody, as far as I can see, is trying to minimise the magnitude of her actions. But you are jumping to very extreme conclusions in regards to whatever sentence she may receive if she is tried. Why not wait and see the outcome of the process before getting so worked up?

[sungod]

3 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Nonsense. She would NEVER be expelled/deported again from the UK. You know this.

So does she, its win win.

[nemo38]

 

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

The comment raising some interesting issues. So far as I know the person has not yet been sentenced for terrorism nor is she a citizen of a third country i.e. Bangladesh. Is it not the responsibility of HMG to ensure the individual is returned to the UK to face justice for supporting an Islamist terror group.

 

I don't care about bringing her back to the UK to go on trial for terrorism. There are an endless supply of people just like her who are part of a hostile alien group within the UK. They will always be against the white British population. It is cheaper and more expedient to let her stay where she is. 

 

I don't want to play along with people who say "ha ha! We are destroying your civilisation using your own rules!"

 

 

 

 

[Dionigi]

Give her back her citizenship. I think that treason is still the only crime with the death penalty in the Uk.

[bert bloggs]

39 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Again, read the op. Her citizenship was stripped, so she can not return. Now judges have decided that stripping of citizenship was not done according to the law, since she could not appeal the decision. So now she can return to appeal. If the decision to strip was lawful she will be expelled, if it was unlawful she can stay. If the latter, which I suspect, she will be tried in the UK.

She will never be expelled even if it is decided the decision to strip was lawful ,Bangladesh have said they dont want her ,so Britain will be stuck with her ,living on benefits for the rest of days .

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Nonsense. She would NEVER be expelled/deported again from the UK. You know this.

If the court rules the removal of her citizenship illegal then there is no means to legally expel her.

 

[nemo38]

1 minute ago, Dionigi said:

Give her back her citizenship. I think that treason is still the only crime with the death penalty in the Uk.

 

No, Blair removed the death penalty for treason - for obvious reasons...

 

8 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

Do you have such little faith in the UK courts that you think an immature, poorly educated girl from a council estate is going to be able to run rings round them?

 

British justice is the best that money can buy. She will have the best lawyers paid for by ethnic grudge groups. When decisions don't go their way, for instance with Jez Turner, grudge groups have the finances for private prosecutions.

[bert bloggs]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If the court rules the removal of her citizenship illegal then there is no means to legally expel her.

 

we are stuck with her for life

 

Edited July 17, 2020 by bert bloggs

[baansgr]

46 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Again, read the op. Her citizenship was stripped, so she can not return. Now judges have decided that stripping of citizenship was not done according to the law, since she could not appeal the decision. So now she can return to appeal. If the decision to strip was lawful she will be expelled, if it was unlawful she can stay. If the latter, which I suspect, she will be tried in the UK.

I'm confused, your last post says she is a British Citizen, now you say she isn't and that's why she can't return

[stevenl]

37 minutes ago, sungod said:

She is not a prisoner of war, ISIS are a terrorist organisation.

 

She betrayed the UK by becoming a terrorist, joining ISIS, becoming a threat to the UK therefore they removed her citizenship.

 

Quite simple really..

Yews, that was the reasoning. However the removal of citizenship has been deemed to have been done not according to the law since she could not appeal that decision. So now she can appeal. If upheld she will be stripped of citizenship.

[kingdong]

3 hours ago, tribalfusion001 said:

Disgusting, should be shot, ISIS traitor.

 

2 hours ago, tribalfusion001 said:

Her father is and resides there.

 

No, she made her choice to join a terrorist group and marry an ISIS fighter. She deserves nothing.

she deserves an obe

[simple1]

11 minutes ago, sungod said:

The Government are representing its people, it seemed a very popular action to remove the citizenship of someone who actively supported some of the most obscene terrorist acts ever seen.

Unless HMG changes the law they cannot deport a UK citizen / stateless person, in any case which country would accept her?

[stevenl]

Just now, baansgr said:

I'm confused, your last post says she is a British Citizen, now you say she isn't and that's why she can't return

She was stripped of citizenship, so deemed to be not a British citizen, hence she could not return. But that stripping has now been deemed to have not been done in accordance to the law, so she is still a British citizen and can return. 

She can appeal the decision to strip, if upheld she will be expelled, if not upheld she can be tried in the UK. I think the latter will happen.

[vogie]

A statement issued by Sajid Javid.

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, nemo38 said:

 

British justice is the best that money can buy. She will have the best lawyers paid for by ethnic grudge groups. When decisions don't go their way, for instance with Jez Turner, grudge groups have the finances for private prosecutions.

What is wrong with having competent and capable lawyers? If I was appearing in court I would wish talented representation, as I am sure you would too. 

[RuamRudy]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

A statement issued by Sajid Javid.

 

Measured and sensible. 

[kingdong]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

The decision to strip her of British citizenship was taken under tremendous public outrage over her. And that outrage was understandable and justified. But that does not make the decision justified, especially since she could not appeal it.

she gave up her rights when she willingly joined a terrorist organisation.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

Certainly not. The member advocates domestic terrorism / vigilantism. One would guess the member would possibly come under review by HMG if he were resident in the UK. 

 

"Looks like this will be one for the vigilantes. Hope they remember who the judge was, and who the liberals pushing for this grotesque repatriation order were"

The member may well post a laughing emoji, but in the UK it is illegal to invoke violence, especially so against a member of the Justices, as would be it would be in Thailand. Laws are also changing globally to make it illegal for social media platforms for not removing content / posters inciting violence on their platforms.

[sirocco]

it's simple, simple 1, France will welcome it.
She takes all the <deleted> in the world.

[bert bloggs]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Bert, for the second time this week I’ll remind you, I am not the topic under discussion.

Ok ,can i ask you what is confusing about my post? when i say we are stuck with her for life ,do you think we are not?

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

What is wrong with having competent and capable lawyers? If I was appearing in court I would wish talented representation, as I am sure you would too. 

The flaw I see in this comment is that there will be a good chance the good old British tax payer will be paying for this legal extravaganza, yes the very people she would liked to have seen dead and possibly would still like to see dead. Something wrong here somewhere IMO anyway.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

A statement issued by Sajid Javid.

 

Perhaps a bit of forethought applied to the decision to strip this individual of her citizenship rather than pandering to the anger generated by the rightwing press might have avoided this mess.

 

As is often the case, knee jerk reaction from Government creates more problems down the line.

 

On the upside, if there is evidence of this woman having committed terrorism related crimes she can be arrested, charged and tried in an open court of law.

 

[nemo38]

3 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

What is wrong with having competent and capable lawyers? If I was appearing in court I would wish talented representation, as I am sure you would too. 

The German system is more just, where both prosecution and defence lawyers are duty bound to bring to light any evidence they find. So they can't sit on evidence that would help the "opposition". 

 

tAnyway, Third world foreigners, particularly those of a religious group who believe they should dominate the whole world, should have no standing in the UK at all. They should never have been given citizenship. We should repatriate them now, irrespective of where they have been born.

 

I agree with the Duke of Bedford who spoke against the 1753 Jewish naturalisation act saying that no group of foreigners should ever allowed to settle in Britain in such numbers that they come anywhere near rivalling the natives OR where they don't blend into the natives after the first generation. As we have seen, they end up ganging up on the natives.

 

I don't subscribe to the idea that we have to continue to follow a set of rules (laws) that have been subverted and are being used to destroy us.

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, bert bloggs said:

Ok ,can i ask you what is confusing about my post? when i say we are stuck with her for life ,do you think we are not?

Because you are not stuck with her and if you are not in the UK it is difficult to imagine how you got the ‘we’ in there.