3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If that’s the case then it wouldn’t be too difficult for the Government to place their evidence before a jury in an open court of law.

The court might also address the ‘and may still be’ bit.

The woman has admitted to the wrongdoing in multiple public interviews. She is not arguing her case based upon those wrongdoings. Rather, she is trying to use a technicality to avoid taking responsibility for her actions.

This case does not qualify for a jury trial in the UK. You are demanding that she be given special privileges. This is the UK, not the USA. There is no constitutional or common law “right” to a trial by jury. Nor can the UK government be compelled to reveal all of its evidence in a public forum since some of the evidence is critical to national security and relied on the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service covert actions.

Her participation on behalf of ISIS over several years is irrefutable. She admitted to her past wrongdoing in multiple public interviews. Her justification for the rape and enslavement of yazidi children was disgusting. She was not a loyal citizen and her activity in ISIS was that of one who has taken up arms against the UK.

The UK is being singled out for harassment. The Netherlands wasn't interested in repatriating Begum's terrorist husband and no one complained about that.

2 hours ago, Don Jose said:

I remember that she wasn't kidnapped. She had to go secretly to get to the place she wanted to go. She got railed every night to feel she was helping the cause of ISIS. There was nothing involuntary.

BUT, she was 15 so too young to know what she was doing. Funny how arrogant she was before realizing the consequences of her actions. A case of literally FAFO.

Had she been reminded that undertaking her journey would result in her losing her citizenship and that she would never be allowed to return do you think she would have changed her mind, settled down , and spent her years as a "good muslim" I think it's highly unlikely.

But if she had stayed her radicalization would have continued and she would probably have blown herself up by now, along with god knows how many innocent victims

The government is always harping on about making examples of wrong doers and sending out the right signals, Lets see if just for once they can walk the walk rather than merely talk the talk. Personally I'm far from convinced

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The woman has admitted to the wrongdoing in multiple public interviews. She is not arguing her case based upon those wrongdoings. Rather, she is trying to use a technicality to avoid taking responsibility for her actions.

This case does not qualify for a jury trial in the UK. You are demanding that she be given special privileges. This is the UK, not the USA. There is no constitutional or common law “right” to a trial by jury. Nor can the UK government be compelled to reveal all of its evidence in a public forum since some of the evidence is critical to national security and relied on the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service covert actions.

Her participation on behalf of ISIS over several years is irrefutable. She admitted to her past wrongdoing in multiple public interviews. Her justification for the rape and enslavement of yazidi children was disgusting. She was not a loyal citizen and her activity in ISIS was that of one who has taken up arms against the UK.

The UK is being singled out for harassment. The Netherlands wasn't interested in repatriating Begum's terrorist husband and no one complained about that.

You are putting up circular arguments, and there absolutely is a legal right to trial by jury in the UK.

I’m not demanding anything, I’m pointing out the fact that the previous government has used executive edict to strip a British citizen of her nationality and rights.

I’ve given both the historical precedence and root of trial by jury/freedom from punishment and exile by edict and I’ve pointed out precisely why the executive determining both guilt and penalty is a very dangerous precedent.

1 hour ago, Bday Prang said:

Had she been reminded that undertaking her journey would result in her losing her citizenship and that she would never be allowed to return do you think she would have changed her mind, settled down , and spent her years as a "good muslim" I think it's highly unlikely.

But if she had stayed her radicalization would have continued and she would probably have blown herself up by now, along with god knows how many innocent victims

The government is always harping on about making examples of wrong doers and sending out the right signals, Lets see if just for once they can walk the walk rather than merely talk the talk. Personally I'm far from convinced

Conjecture is the strongest part of your argument.

6 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Some folks never criticize Muslim terrorists. Watch their posts.

They share the same goals.

You have a point, I've noticed that too ,many on the international left never ever condemn terrorist. Terrorist & violent extremists go together as a subset.

Google ai overview

"Mainstream Left: Mainstream left-wing political parties and movements in Europe, such as those within the European Parliament's "The Left" group, generally operate within democratic frameworks and do not support terrorism. They condemn violence and focus on social, economic, and political change through established channels".

5 minutes ago, riclag said:

Google ai overview

"Mainstream Left: Mainstream left-wing political parties and movements in Europe, such as those within the European Parliament's "The Left" group, generally operate within democratic frameworks and do not support terrorism. They condemn violence and focus on social, economic, and political change through established channels".

Generally. Nice AI dissembling.

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Conjecture is the strongest part of your argument.

Thanks for the compliment.