1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No, I’m pointing out the logical conclusion of the emotive argument you made.

 

I put it to you that it is not just my argument, but the belief of the majority of the UK citizens, it defies all logic to pander to some-one who would sooner have you dead than look at you.

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

OK, at least we now know what we have here.

 

You pose as a humanitarian but the view of "tolerance" which you push ends up with white people afraid to walk outside and afraid to speak in their own countries. 

 

 

1 minute ago, vogie said:

I put it to you that it is not just my argument, but the belief of the majority of the UK citizens, it defies all logic to pander to some-one who would sooner have you dead than look at you.

And I put it to my learned sir that it isn’t this young lady or her alleged crimes that the court is examining.

 

Its the actions of the British Government in stripping her of her British citizenship.

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

And I put it to my learned sir that it isn’t this young lady or her alleged crimes that the court is examining.

 

Its the actions of the British Government in stripping her of her British citizenship.

Well done the British Government, it's about time citizens are put above terrorists. I rest my case m'lud.

5 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

To where do you propose that they are exiled? 

As I said, the UK should take the opportunity of ejecting or excluding people where it arises. For example, if they have a second citizenship then strip them of British citizenship and send them to their other country of citizenship. In the case of this woman, deny her entry into the UK.

 

Israel has a deal with an African country to house migrants that Israel does not want. The UK can make such a deal. Lets face it, cconomic migrants would look elsewhere.

 

The UK could make a deal with an African country to operate a prison colony, settling any prisoners there after they complete their sentence. If foreign criminals knew they would end up exiled in Africa they would target another country.

 

We should also look at repatriation for communities that are a problem for the UK. The alternative is leaving them to ruin our way of live and eventually overwhelm us.

 

 

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

"It's a bit like the chicken and the egg"

No, it is not.

 

"she is not a British Citizen at present"

Not correct, she is a British citizen.

 

"so the initial decision stands until it is overturned hence making her not British at present"

No. Until her appeal gets rejected or the decision she has a right to appeal gets overturned she is a British citizen.

 

So a convicted murderer is innocent and allowed to roam free until all his appeals are overturned?...same same...she is not a citizen anymore.

5 hours ago, tribalfusion001 said:

I don't think Bangladesh wanted her either, that's pretty bad if one of the poorest countries in the world doesn't want you lol.

 

IIRC Islamic Bangladesh said they wouldn't accept her. Even though her dad is Bangladeshi and lives there. 

 

They aren't stupid. They don't want a nasty radicalized bitch coming to their country and spreading ISIS doctrine. 

 

Her husband, a father of the 3 children she conceived and didn't look after is a Dutch citizen. Why doesn't she go with him?

 

 

1 minute ago, nemo38 said:

As I said, the UK should take the opportunity of ejecting or excluding people where it arises. For example, if they have a second citizenship then strip them of British citizenship and send them to their other country of citizenship. In the case of this woman, deny her entry into the UK.

 

Israel has a deal with an African country to house migrants that Israel does not want. The UK can make such a deal. Lets face it, cconomic migrants would look elsewhere.

 

The UK could make a deal with an African country to operate a prison colony, settling any prisoners there after they complete their sentence. If foreign criminals knew they would end up exiled in Africa they would target another country.

 

We should also look at repatriation for communities that are a problem for the UK. The alternative is leaving them to ruin our way of live and eventually overwhelm us.

 

 

So we create a problem in the UK then we export that problem to a poorer country? Sounds very... colonial.

 

Personally speaking, in terms of the universality of the respect of human rights, Israel is definitely not a country I would wish the UK to emulate.

 

And let's not forget - she was born in Britain and is as British as the rest of us who were born there. 

2 minutes ago, baansgr said:

So a convicted murderer is innocent and allowed to roam free until all his appeals are overturned?...same same...she is not a citizen anymore.

Huh? Apples and oranges. If you want to understand the case at hand you really have to get this 'she is not a citizen anymore' out of your head. It is simply not correct.

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

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

They are not deporting anyone, she is in Syria where she chose to travel. ISIS were defeated, now she wants to return to the UK. Leave her where she is and do it by video.

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

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.

And remain in the UK with many more years of costly court battles at the UK tax payer expense, probably lots of benefits too!

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

So we create a problem in the UK then we export that problem to a poorer country? Sounds very... colonial.

 

Personally speaking, in terms of the universality of the respect of human rights, Israel is definitely not a country I would wish the UK to emulate.

 

And let's not forget - she was born in Britain and is as British as the rest of us who were born there. 

Oh...we created the problem....God alive, let's take a knee and erect a statue for her....as for British as the rest of us, that's gotta be the understatement of the year..

1 minute ago, Baerboxer said:

 

IIRC Islamic Bangladesh said they wouldn't accept her. Even though her dad is Bangladeshi and lives there. 

 

They aren't stupid. They don't want a nasty radicalized bitch coming to their country and spreading ISIS doctrine. 

 

Her husband, a father of the 3 children she conceived and didn't look after is a Dutch citizen. Why doesn't she go with him?

 

 

That isn't necessarily the reason by Bangladesh "excluded" her. Bangladesh invaded and settled the Chittagong Hill tracts, forcing the native people to flee to the woods. The capital of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, Ranghamati is now 99% Bengali. 

 

Millions of Bengalis moved into Myanmar (Burma) since the 1940s (mostly since the 1970s). Since that time they formed a movement to take over Arakan state. Myanmar pushed most of these settlers back over the border in the 1980s and more recently. You don't want a hostile foreign people settling your country and taking over.

 

There are millions of other Bengali settlers in the UK, the rest of Europe, and all over the world. They are spreading their people far and wide.

 

Bangladesh may not want to set a precedent of taking back their settlers who are ejected by host countries. 

 

Bangladesh could easily have given her an apartment and a team of people to keep her happy and not blowing things up. 

9 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And I put it to my learned sir that it isn’t this young lady or her alleged crimes that the court is examining.

 

Its the actions of the British Government in stripping her of her British citizenship.

 

That is correct.

 

I believe the appeal judges agreed that she was denied a fair trial by not being allowed to travel into the UK and be able to personally present her defense.

 

So it is the process they deem unfair. 

 

However, as many trials now include appearances and presentations by video links, especially with the dangers of the current pandemic, she could appear on video.

 

This will go to the Supreme Court first who will rule on the appeals court judgement. 

 

If she is allowed to retain her British citizenship and return to the UK she should, on doing so, be immediately arrested and charged with appropriate terrorist offensives. A court would then decide if she's guilty or not and sentence accodingly.

 

 

More inflammatory posts and replies removed

1 minute ago, RuamRudy said:

So we create a problem in the UK then we export that problem to a poorer country? Sounds very... colonial.

 

Personally speaking, in terms of the universality of the respect of human rights, Israel is definitely not a country I would wish the UK to emulate.

 

And let's not forget - she was born in Britain and is as British as the rest of us who were born there. 

With citizenship there comes certain responsibilties, one of those responsibilities is not to do harm to your fellow citizens, the Home Secretary has a responsiblity to protect the countries citizens and has the power to revoke someones citizenship should they be a threat to us all.

Out of interest how can the UK be responsible for her wanting to kill us all, I suggest her indocrination came from other sources rather than the local school corriculum.

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So we create a problem in the UK then we export that problem to a poorer country? Sounds very... colonial.

 

Personally speaking, in terms of the universality of the respect of human rights, Israel is definitely not a country I would wish the UK to emulate.

 

And let's not forget - she was born in Britain and is as British as the rest of us who were born there. 

 

Islam is the problem and it wasn't created in the UK. To be fair, she is just following the Koran. We can't afford to tolerate a religion which won't tolerate our freedom. 

 

It is apparent that she isn't "as British as the rest of us." I'm not agreeing to see the country destroyed for the sake of some mental ludo.

 

 

 

 

7 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

So we create a problem in the UK then we export that problem to a poorer country? Sounds very... colonial.

 

Personally speaking, in terms of the universality of the respect of human rights, Israel is definitely not a country I would wish the UK to emulate.

 

And let's not forget - she was born in Britain and is as British as the rest of us who were born there. 

 

Being born in Britain does not make you automatically British or a British citizen.

 

Her behavior suggests she believes she belongs to a different culture altogether. That should be respected. It was her choice. 

 

Now, that the sh$$ts hit the fan, she wants to turn the clock back and pretend it all never happened. And expects Britain to pick up the tab and look after her. 

 

The world has changed. It's far from an ideal place and getting less so, sadly. So idealist ideas aren't so much a solution to the current issues. More pragmatic approaches are needed.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

<snip> the Home Secretary has a responsiblity to protect the countries citizens and has the power to revoke someones citizenship should they be a threat to us all.

<snip>

Yes, but there are conditions to that. Her citizenship has been removed, but the question is now, was that done in accordance with the law?

4 minutes ago, baansgr said:

Oh...we created the problem....

 She was born and raised in Britain. Her radicalization occurred on on British soil.

 

6 minutes ago, baansgr said:

God alive, let's take a knee and erect a statue for her...

Come on, I appreciate that this isn't the Oxford Union, but surely you can do better than that?

 

7 minutes ago, baansgr said:

as for British as the rest of us, that's gotta be the understatement of the year..

That makes no sense, but she was born in Britain and had, until recently, British citizenship. You may not like that fact but your approval is not necessary. 

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Yes, but there are conditions to that. Her citizenship has been removed, but the question is now, was that done in accordance with the law?

Yes.

6 hours ago, simon43 said:

I read just now that she actually got legal aid to appeal her case at the UK Court of Appeal.  Quite how she managed to get this aid when no longer a British citizen is beyond me......

maybe some new lawyer looking for publicity

10 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

She was born and raised in Britain. Her radicalization occurred on on British soil.

So if I read lots of extremist stuff on The internet here in Pattaya, then run off down the road and blow myself up killing others, Thailand should bear responsibility for my action right?

10 minutes ago, vogie said:

Yes.

An appeal will clarify that. If it comes to an appeal of course, because there is also the possibility that the government appeals the court's decision and gets that decision overturned. 

1 minute ago, sungod said:

So if I read lots of extremist stuff on The internet here in Pattaya, then run off down the road and blow myself up killing others, Thailand should bear responsibility for my action right?

Are you a Thai citizen?

No, what difference does that make?

1 minute ago, sungod said:

No, what difference does that make?

 

He wants to say that the magic soil where you are born, or raised, gives you the properties of the people who lived there historically.

 

1 minute ago, nemo38 said:

 

He wants to say that the magic soil where you are born, or raised, gives you the properties of the people who lived there historically.

 

Well, I've spent the last 30 years in Thailand, more time than I spent anywhere else, going by the weird logic of being on their soil for so long, I guess Thailand would be right?

11 minutes ago, nemo38 said:

 

He wants to say that the magic soil where you are born, or raised, gives you the properties of the people who lived there historically.

 

No, that would be a US thing.

 

But if I have to explain there is a connection between citizenship and ability to reside in a country there is not much hope.

8 minutes ago, sungod said:

Well, I've spent the last 30 years in Thailand, more time than I spent anywhere else, going by the weird logic of being on their soil for so long, I guess Thailand would be right?

It's really not that difficult a concept to grasp. You have a passport. That passport denotes your citizenship. All the countries of the world have reached an understanding that, ultimately, each country takes ultimate responsibility for their citizens. No matter how long you spend in Thailand, unless you have Thai citizenship, the country for which you hold citizenship assumes responsibility for you.