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

Watch
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 2 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Napp)
Aside from running off to join a prescribed court, none of them can realistically be proved though..
If something can't be proven, how do we know it actually happened?
I thought we'd got beyond convicting people merely on suspicion.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#42
Report 2 weeks ago
#42
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
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.
It's not coming back here 'when she wants'.

It's the courts deciding that if the state is going to deprive someone of their liberties or citizenship, that said individual should be given the right to a fair trial. It's fundamental to the magna carta.

One of the great things about Britain is our belief in the rule of law, that the executive's decisions must be lawful and that everyone has the right to a fair trial. It's alarming how people that claim to love Britain, oppose those principles.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#43
Report 2 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by DSilva)
It's not coming back here 'when she wants'.

It's the courts deciding that if the state is going to deprive someone of their liberties or citizenship, that said individual should be given the right to a fair trial. It's fundamental to the magna carta.

One of the great things about Britain is our belief in the rule of law, that the executive's decisions must be lawful and that everyone has the right to a fair trial. It's alarming how people that claim to love Britain, oppose those principles.
When that law protects criminals instead of victims, which ours does most of the time then there is something seriously wrong. I should add, it's also what the left tell themselves to try to justify all of the crime that goes on in this country. "It's fine, they'll face the full force of the law!" The full force being a cookie and hug, or maybe even, the comfy chair!

Will Brexit make the poor poorer by the way? Seems to have all gone quiet on that front. Perfectly happy giving your opinion and calling me a bigot until your caught out then you go quiet, funny that.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 2 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
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.
Strangely enough, that is a decision that will be taken by the courts based on the law, not by you, or any other individual based on personal opinion.
Jolly good thing too!
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report 2 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
When that law protects criminals instead of victims, which ours does most of the time then there is something seriously wrong. I should add, it's also what the left tell themselves to try to justify all of the crime that goes on in this country. "It's fine, they'll face the full force of the law!" The full force being a cookie and hug, or maybe even, the comfy chair!

Will Brexit make the poor poorer by the way? Seems to have all gone quiet on that front. Perfectly happy giving your opinion and calling me a bigot until your caught out then you go quiet, funny that.
In this country, everyone has the right to a fair trial, no matter what they have done or are alleged to have done. It's an inalianble right.

I think that's a great thing.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 2 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
When that law protects criminals instead of victims, which ours does most of the time then there is something seriously wrong. I should add, it's also what the left tell themselves to try to justify all of the crime that goes on in this country. "It's fine, they'll face the full force of the law!" The full force being a cookie and hug, or maybe even, the comfy chair!

Will Brexit make the poor poorer by the way? Seems to have all gone quiet on that front. Perfectly happy giving your opinion and calling me a bigot until your caught out then you go quiet, funny that.
The law doesn't "protect criminals instead of victims" at all. Quite ridiculous to claim it does.
What it does do is protect the rights of individuals, whether they are criminals, victims, or just under suspicion.
I understand that some people think that anyone who strays from their own definition of what is allowable should lose all rights to fair trial, protection, humane treatment, etc, but thankfully the law disagrees. However, we know that there are democratically elected leaders who would happily remove the courts' ability to hold government to account - our own included.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#47
Report 2 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by DSilva)
It's not coming back here 'when she wants'.

It's the courts deciding that if the state is going to deprive someone of their liberties or citizenship, that said individual should be given the right to a fair trial. It's fundamental to the magna carta.

One of the great things about Britain is our belief in the rule of law, that the executive's decisions must be lawful and that everyone has the right to a fair trial. It's alarming how people that claim to love Britain, oppose those principles.
It's pretty obvious that she joined IS and supported jihadism. Why should someone who fights against Britain hold British citizenship?
3
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report 2 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
It's pretty obvious that she joined IS and supported jihadism. Why should someone who fights against Britain hold British citizenship?
As a matter of law you can't make someone stateless. You may disagree with that, but its the law and our courts must apply it.

In any event, the courts haven't given her citizenship. Their concern was to ensure that she is allowed a fair hearing to appeal decisions by the state to remove her citizenship.

I think it's a good things that our courts uphold the law. Don't you?
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#49
Report 2 weeks ago
#49
The Home Office has described the ruling as "disappointing" and released a statement confirming that it is looking to appeal the judgement.
I hope that on appeal this catastrophic ruling will be reversed.
Thus ensuring a firm precedent that will make crystal clear to all other terrorists, wannabe terrorists, their families and allies that the British "government’s top priority remains maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe" within British territories.
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#50
Report 2 weeks ago
#50
Great. She will come back, get lionised by the BBC and Guardian, and win a compensation claim worth hundreds of thousands against the government. You can see it now.

What I cannot understand is why we don't have sufficiently robust legal systems to try and convict her for treason? That is what she is guilty of.

Even as short a time ago as the end of the second world war, a man, William Joyce, was convicted of treason and executed. The death penalty for treason long outlived that for murder, I believe.

That execution is now controversial, and as I understand it, the treason laws are no longer considered fit for purpose.

Well how about Boris updates them then?
4
reply
Sabertooth
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 2 weeks ago
#51
"Ms Begum took legal action against the Home Office, claiming the government's decision was unlawful because it rendered her stateless and exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and degrading treatment"

This is my favorite bit. Didn't care too much about death and inhuman treatment of innocent people by ISIS.
6
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#52
Report 2 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Sabertooth)
"Ms Begum took legal action against the Home Office, claiming the government's decision was unlawful because it rendered her stateless and exposed her to a real risk of death or inhuman and degrading treatment"

This is my favorite bit. Didn't care too much about death and inhuman treatment of innocent people by ISIS.
PRSOM.
0
reply
CatusStarbright
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#53
Report 2 weeks ago
#53
(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.
We uphold human rights because we have better standards than ISIS and we refuse to sink to their level. Obviously!
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#54
Report 2 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by generallee)
What I cannot understand is why we don't have sufficiently robust legal systems to try and convict her for treason? That is what she is guilty of.

Even as short a time ago as the end of the second world war, a man, William Joyce, was convicted of treason and executed. The death penalty for treason long outlived that for murder, I believe.

That execution is now controversial, and as I understand it, the treason laws are no longer considered fit for purpose.

Well how about Boris updates them then?
Do you support capital punishment? :confused:
Or the introduction of new laws along the lines of the repealed Treachery Act?

Lord Haw Haw was Irish, born in the USA and dishonestly obtained a British passport through fraudulent conduct.
A vicious habitual criminal and noisy racist scumbag that even Mosley didn't mourn, it is arguable whether the treason allegation was made in good faith and whether Haw Haw should have been tried for treason by another nation.
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#55
Report 2 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by DSilva)
In this country, everyone has the right to a fair trial, no matter what they have done or are alleged to have done. It's an inalianble right.

I think that's a great thing.
I don't deny the right to a fair trial. I question some of the sentences that are given out as a result of these trials. Some of the punishments given out for crime committed in this country are just bizarre, absolutely bizarre. This woman, and many many others to which the floodgates have just opened to went and voluntarily joined an organisation which purpose is to see the destruction of the west. These judges are absolutely bonkers for overturning the decision, they've completely lost the plot.

Notice you're still avoiding the question. I'm just going to assume that you're admitting through your silence that Brexit will indeed make the poor poorer. Glad we've sorted that out.
(Original post by QE2)
The law doesn't "protect criminals instead of victims" at all. Quite ridiculous to claim it does.
What it does do is protect the rights of individuals, whether they are criminals, victims, or just under suspicion.
I understand that some people think that anyone who strays from their own definition of what is allowable should lose all rights to fair trial, protection, humane treatment, etc, but thankfully the law disagrees. However, we know that there are democratically elected leaders who would happily remove the courts' ability to hold government to account - our own included.
Consistently, time after time ridiculous sentences are given for crimes that deserve an awful lot more. The criminal justice system in this country due to various reasons including lack of funding does appear to benefit the criminals if you are a law abiding citizen. That is why we see constant reoffending by the same old people, because they know they'll get a piss poor sentence handed out.

In this specific case, apart from money grabbing lawyers, I cannot see literally anyone saying that she should be allowed back in this country. I am absolutely certain that you are not saying that we should allow a former member of islamic state to set up shop here, are you?
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#56
Report 2 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
I don't deny the right to a fair trial. I question some of the sentences that are given out as a result of these trials. Some of the punishments given out for crime committed in this country are just bizarre, absolutely bizarre. This woman, and many many others to which the floodgates have just opened to went and voluntarily joined an organisation which purpose is to see the destruction of the west. These judges are absolutely bonkers for overturning the decision, they've completely lost the plot.

Notice you're still avoiding the question. I'm just going to assume that you're admitting through your silence that Brexit will indeed make the poor poorer. Glad we've sorted that out.


Consistently, time after time ridiculous sentences are given for crimes that deserve an awful lot more. The criminal justice system in this country due to various reasons including lack of funding does appear to benefit the criminals if you are a law abiding citizen. That is why we see constant reoffending by the same old people, because they know they'll get a piss poor sentence handed out.

In this specific case, apart from money grabbing lawyers, I cannot see literally anyone saying that she should be allowed back in this country. I am absolutely certain that you are not saying that we should allow a former member of islamic state to set up shop here, are you?
What decision do you think the judges have overturned? They haven't granted her citizenship, they have merely stated that for the purposes of a fair trial, she needs to be able to enter the UK.

The courts role is to uphold the law. What legal error do you think they've made?
0
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by DSilva)
What decision do you think the judges have overturned? They haven't granted her citizenship, they have merely stated that for the purposes of a fair trial, she needs to be able to enter the UK.

The courts role is to uphold the law. What legal error do you think they've made?
They could quite easily establish a video link.


To quote Sajid Javid, "the judgements and precedents set in this case could bind the hands of the government in managing past and future cases." Here we go, they'll all be wanting back in now after turning their backs on the UK.

He is also quite correct in what he's said regarding her staying here. Once she's back in, she'll be extremely difficult to get rid of.
0
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by londonmyst)
Do you support capital punishment? :confused:
Or the introduction of new laws along the lines of the repealed Treachery Act?

Lord Haw Haw was Irish, born in the USA and dishonestly obtained a British passport through fraudulent conduct.
A vicious habitual criminal and noisy racist scumbag that even Mosley didn't mourn, it is arguable whether the treason allegation was made in good faith and whether Haw Haw should have been tried for treason by another nation.
I know the history of Joyce, that is why I described his hanging (which was so violent, by the way that it ripped open his famous scar) as "controversial".

So no, I don't support the way it was done, and think the punishment was draconian in his case. But that wasn't my point.

We have gone from being a society where traitors were executed (and if you go a bit further back this was done in the most humiliating and painful way imaginable) to one in which they can't even be tried for the crime.

I am not suggesting that Begum be hung drawn and quartered, but I do think she should be imprisoned for her treason.

And if the current law isn't fit for purpose, update it to be suitable for our age of British born Jihadists.
Last edited by generallee; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by imlikeahermit)
They could quite easily establish a video link.


To quote Sajid Javid, "the judgements and precedents set in this case could bind the hands of the government in managing past and future cases." Here we go, they'll all be wanting back in now after turning their backs on the UK.

He is also quite correct in what he's said regarding her staying here. Once she's back in, she'll be extremely difficult to get rid of.
I suggest you read the judgement of the court. They determined, based on the available evidence, that it would not be possible for her to recieve a fair trial unless she were to enter Britain.
0
reply
bothanspy
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
Who are these judges? name and shame
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (35)
42.17%
Take autumn exams (29)
34.94%
Look for a job (2)
2.41%
Consider an apprenticeship (3)
3.61%
Take a year out (11)
13.25%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (3)
3.61%

Watched Threads

View All