The Student Room Group

“British” IS pair complain about losing citizenship

Scroll to see replies

Original post by nulli tertius
But killing those innocent people then ceases to be a crime in the UK (unless the victims are British).

Most Brits wouldn't feel very comfortable about a gang of murderous thugs who sound British and self-identify as British not being able to be put on trial for killing innocent people.

Most Brits would say "no-one told me that stripping them of citizenship meant that they could then massacre people with impunity".


But if you've removed their citizenship, why would it be pertinent that it would no longer be an offence in English law? We're unlikely to try people who've killed innocents abroad if we have no national tie to those people.

Also is it even conceivable that anyone would be prosecuted for murders committed abroad, as part of fighting for IS? It would be difficult to prove, I would imagine.
Original post by Notoriety
But if you've removed their citizenship, why would it be pertinent that it would no longer be an offence in English law? We're unlikely to try people who've killed innocents abroad if we have no national tie to those people.

Also is it even conceivable that anyone would be prosecuted for murders committed abroad, as part of fighting for IS? It would be difficult to prove, I would imagine.


We now have no national tie to these "Beetles" but that hasn't stopped the press coverage of them compared with the personal coverage of every other Islamic fighter in Syria. The level of identification with Britain necessary to invoke public opinion doesn't necessarily coincide with present possession of a UK passport.

Generally we have been prosecuting for Terrorism Act offences because they are relatively easy to prosecute and have sufficient seriousness that individual acts do not need to identified.

Depriving the disloyal of citizenship is not a strategy previously adopted and I suspect our ancestors were right about this.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
We now have no national tie to these "Beetles" but that hasn't stopped the press coverage of them compared with the personal coverage of every other Islamic fighter in Syria. The level of identification with Britain necessary to invoke public opinion doesn't necessarily coincide with present possession of a UK passport.

Generally we have been prosecuting for Terrorism Act offences because they are relatively easy to prosecute and have sufficient seriousness that individual acts do not need to identified.

Depriving the disloyal of citizenship is not a strategy previously adopted and I suspect our ancestors were right about this.


I agree, but I think this is slightly different. Here the Government has given up on ever getting the person back into the UK by the act of stripping citizenship. That's not accounting for the public's perspective, I admit.

I suppose, from a Government perspective, if we needed to, we could get them back through transfer of sentenced persons but I think that's dangerous. We'd be relying on a potentially unfair trial as the basis of UK imprisonment.
As soon as person decided to join IS he basically becomes the citizen of IS country (or whatever entity their represent) - thus strip them of citizenship and return them to kurds or whatever to deal with them. If they hadn't be caught they would have continued their acts and wouldn't have felt any remorse.

My opinion in such cases. Win while you can, but be prepared to die when lose.
(edited 5 years ago)
They gave up their citizenship when they left to join isis, if they want to come back then they should be charged with treason and hung which can still be done legally but government won't enact it.
Original post by Andrew97
I know right. People like that irritate me. They were captured by the Kurds, let the Kurds deal with them. I’m sure they’ll think of something suitable.


I don't hugely care about their rights, and frankly I'm perfectly happy for Rojava to deal with them however they like. However, if they decide for whatever reason they don't want them, and want to deport them back to the UK, we should be obliged to co-operate with that. Washing our hands of them and saying they're entirely Rojava's problem whether they want them or not, on the other hand, would be shirking our responsibilities.
I find it strange that the press continue to use the nickname "The Beatles" when referring to a jihadi death squad.
Original post by Chucke1992
As soon as person decided to join IS he basically becomes the citizen of IS country (or whatever entity their represent) - thus strip them of citizenship and return them to kurds or whatever to deal with them. If they hadn't be caught they would have continued their acts and wouldn't have felt any remorse.

My opinion in such cases. Win while you can, but be prepared to die when lose.


You can't be a citizen of somewhere that doesn't exist or more accurately, that the British government t doesn't recognise as a legitimate state.

Also, having looked into this before, I was under the impression that the British government would under absolutely no circumstances revoke citizenship rights of any persons who didn't also have citizenship of some other recognised state. Has that changed? Did these guys have dual citizenship? Is this the UK government ignoring it's own rules when it can't be bothered to follow them again?
Original post by RivalPlayer
I find it strange that the press continue to use the nickname "The Beatles" when referring to a jihadi death squad.


maybe the Stones would work better ?
Original post by simon_g
what a nonsense.
so in other words- you see nothing wrong with throwing your garbage into other people gardens?


I think you should consider morality in this situation.

Wrong analogy to compare them with, considering that garbage has no sense of consciousness.

Take it this way: Would you still let someone be in your home if you knew that they support killings of innocent people?
Original post by RivalPlayer
I find it strange that the press continue to use the nickname "The Beatles" when referring to a jihadi death squad.


or "The Drifters"... their greatest hit was

Spoiler

Original post by mojojojo101
You can't be a citizen of somewhere that doesn't exist or more accurately, that the British government t doesn't recognise as a legitimate state.


Of course you can. Many people are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus or of the State of Palestine, which are both unrecognised by Britain. Do you think they care?

We should have instituted a special exit procedure for such people as these murderers: the 'leave your passport and renounce citizenship here and we will ignore your crime in joining ISIS (but never darken our doors again)' lane through passport control.
Original post by the bear
maybe the Stones would work better ?


I think continuing to refer to them as "The Beatles" gives the impression that they were a bunch of ordinary likeable British lads ie there was something endearing about them.
I think it trivialises their appalling actions and their hatred for the West. I just wonder why the press continue to run with it. I had similar thoughts when the nickname "Jihadi John" became popular. But then I suppose "Murderous Muhammed" would have been too offensive in PC-obsessed Britain (despite being more accurate).
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
Of course you can. Many people are citizens of the Republic of Cyprus or of the State of Palestine, which are both unrecognised by Britain. Do you think they care?

We should have instituted a special exit procedure for such people as these murderers: the 'leave your passport and renounce citizenship here and we will ignore your crime in joining ISIS (but never darken our doors again)' lane through passport control.


You can claim to be a citizen of those places, that doesn't mean the UK will allow to travel on a passport if they are issued (the UK doesn't recognise Taiwanese and Turkish Cypriot passports) and they wont revoke your citizenship so you can defect to the vaguest idea of a terrorist group.

The UK doesn't allow people to become stateless persons which is what you are suggesting, otherwise you are more than welcome to revoke your rights to a British passport, they will just say no if you have nowhere else to go.
Original post by RivalPlayer
I think continuing to refer them as "The Beatles" gives the impression that they were a bunch of ordinary likeable British lads ie there was something endearing about them.
I think it trivialises their appalling actions and their hatred for the West. I just wonder why the press continue to run with it. I had similar thoughts when the nickname "Jihadi John" became popular. But then I suppose "Murderous Muhammed" would have been too offensive in PC-obsessed Britain (despite being more accurate).


tbh i never like the Beatles very much...
Original post by the bear
tbh i never like the Beatles very much...


Neither do I.
perhaps they should have been called the Pythons. that way J. John could have been John Cleese...
Original post by mojojojo101
You can claim to be a citizen of those places, that doesn't mean the UK will allow to travel on a passport if they are issued (the UK doesn't recognise Taiwanese and Turkish Cypriot passports) and they wont revoke your citizenship so you can defect to the vaguest idea of a terrorist group.

The UK doesn't allow people to become stateless persons which is what you are suggesting, otherwise you are more than welcome to revoke your rights to a British passport, they will just say no if you have nowhere else to go.


The UK does recognize Taiwanese but not Northern Cypriot passports.
Original post by mojojojo101

Also, having looked into this before, I was under the impression that the British government would under absolutely no circumstances revoke citizenship rights of any persons who didn't also have citizenship of some other recognised state. Has that changed?


Yes

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/518120/David_Anderson_QC_-_CITIZENSHIP_REMOVAL__web_.pdf

Quick Reply