The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

IS Bride can return to U.K. to challenge removal of british citizenship

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for Napp
Napp
22
Original post by Goyz n The Hood
We must consider the evident probability that these "judges" are in fact enemies of the British people...

That made me physically wince :lol:
Original post by Goyz n The Hood
She will mostly likely be put into a 500k council house at the taxpayer's expense so she can pop out another 4+ children. At this rate I am starting to see the upside of White peoplke going extinct, nobody will be around to pay the taxes to fund baby terror cells.

Is your whole shtick ’white genocide’?

As a non-native, do you think i’m contributing to white extinction?
Original post by IbeIC123
So making a terrorist go off the radar is a better option

Id rather that than her be here inside the prison system.
UK prisons are already Jihadi factories where all too frequently normal Muslims go in and Radical Muslims come out.
One less in the system spreading the cancer is fine by me.
(edited 3 years ago)
I'm not sure why it's such a big deal, personally
Original post by caravaggio2
Id rather that than her be here inside the prison system.
UK prisons are already Jihadi factories where normal Muslims go in and Radical Muslims come out.
One less in the system spreading the cancer is fine by me.

So you’ll rather have the terrorist have a fresh stream of arms and money that can be used against Britain than be locked up for life
The rule of law and human rights prevail in this matter. Alleged terrorist or not, she deserves to be allowed to make her case against being made stateless. We may even be able to arrest and try her while we're at it!
Original post by CatusStarbright
The rule of law and human rights prevail in this matter. Alleged terrorist or not, she deserves to be allowed to make her case against being made stateless. We may even be able to arrest and try her while we're at it!

Strange that we should afford her human rights when she was part of the ISIS morality police who, I assume, didn’t afford anyone human rights.


And we’re the racist country.
Original post by DSilva
This decision has nothing to do with the EU.

I never said it did. I said that the public perception of leaving the EU was so that we could ‘get control of our borders’ which in turn means being able to deport who we want, when we want.


Will brexit make the poor poorer? You’ve ignored this question on two topics now, is it because you know your going to get caught out supporting something that will make the poor poorer while bleating on about the richest in society having to pay for the poor?
Reply 28
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
Original post by Occitanie
Strange that we should afford her human rights when she was part of the ISIS morality police who, I assume, didn’t afford anyone human rights.


And we’re the racist country.

Stop conflating issues.

Unless you are able to point to a legal error, then what exactly are you complaining about?
Original post by DSilva
Stop conflating issues.

Unless you are able to point to a legal error, then what exactly are you complaining about?

I’m allowed to vent my opinion, despite human rights procedures the UK will undoubtedly have to follow.

She’s scum.
Reply 30
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
Original post by Occitanie
I’m allowed to vent my opinion, despite human rights procedures the UK will undoubtedly have to follow.

She’s scum.


Irrelevant. Because we believe in the rule of law in the country. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, no matter what they have done.

That is surely something we should take great pride in.
I, of course, strongly oppose even allowing the case to get this far, but with all the red tape "rule of law" procedures, there is one major issue.
The issue with allowing her to return to fight a court case is, even if she loses, she's more than likely now here to stay. Highly doubt the Human Rights groups and such will allow her to be re-deported back to wherever. It's a very big slap in the face for not just law-abiding citizens, but it's encouraging to those Radical Islamic terrorists who are planning on following her path.
"Yeah, we'll experiment with Radical Islam, join a terrorist organisation at war with the UK, and if things go south, well good old Blighty always has a nice 2 bedroom flat to spare somewhere."
Original post by DSilva
Irrelevant. Because we believe in the rule of law in the country. Everyone is entitled to a fair trial, no matter what they have done.

That is surely something we should take great pride in.

My opinion may be irrelevant to you, but I’m certain it echoes with many, many of those in the UK who don’t want a terrorist to set foot back in the UK.

When she does attend court, it will set a dangerous precedent if she’s somehow brought back into society.

I’m interested to hear how you think she should be dealt with by the courts. What should she be charged with/for?
Original post by Goyz n The Hood
I am more worried that you were allowed into Warwick with BTECs


Erm, what does that have to do with the thread?
Can she not just do a zoom call like everyone else :holmes:
Reply 35
Avatar for DSilva
DSilva
12
Original post by Occitanie
My opinion may be irrelevant to you, but I’m certain it echoes with many, many of those in the UK who don’t want a terrorist to set foot back in the UK.

When she does attend court, it will set a dangerous precedent if she’s somehow brought back into society.

I’m interested to hear how you think she should be dealt with by the courts. What should she be charged with/for?

This is a legal decision. It's absolutely vital that courts make legally correct decisions, no matter how much it annoys swathes of the public. Do you want our courts instead to be looking to make popular decisions?

The decision does not grant her citizenship, nor does it set a precedent. In every case, the court must determine whether an individual could have a fair and effective appeal from outside the UK. Where they cannot and a fair and effective appeal can only happen in the UK, the individual must be allowed to travel to the UK to appeal.

The rule of law is essential. That means the decisions of the executive must be based in law, and those on the brunt end of those decision must be able to legally challenge them.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by CoolCavy
Can she not just do a zoom call like everyone else :holmes:

I can't imagine the connection would be useable, the MoJ struggle with just connecting to prisons in the UK imagine trying to do it to a country that probably doesn't even have infrastructure by this point.
Original post by Occitanie
My opinion may be irrelevant to you, but I’m certain it echoes with many, many of those in the UK who don’t want a terrorist to set foot back in the UK.

When she does attend court, it will set a dangerous precedent if she’s somehow brought back into society.

I’m interested to hear how you think she should be dealt with by the courts. What should she be charged with/for?

So instead of her being jailed and receiving justice she should go Scot free in Syria and could even funnel her way back to Britain under the radar due to porous immigration
Original post by DiddyDec
I can't imagine the connection would be useable, the MoJ struggle with just connecting to prisons in the UK imagine trying to do it to a country that probably doesn't even have infrastructure by this point.

That is true, I cant imagine there is great wifi in the desert
No. She chose to join a jihadist group and to fight against Britain, she doesn't get to come back here when she wants.

Let the Kurds try her for war crimes IMHO.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you