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

Watch
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#61
Report 2 weeks ago
#61
(Original post by generallee)
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.
I disagree with both capital punishment and ever permitting the return of overseas located terrorist scumbags to any British territories.
If the governments of Syria, Iraq or Turkey desire to bring charges against such terrorists for either illegal immigration practices or terrorist atrocities allegedly perpetrated on their soil- they can do so.
At their own expense and in accordance with their own traditions.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#62
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#62
(Original post by bothanspy)
Who are these judges? name and shame
That would be rather unwise.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#63
Report 2 weeks ago
#63
(Original post by Andrew97)
That would be rather unwise.
The judges names are not a secret. The judgement was published, along with the judges who heard the case. In this country, we have open justice.

Not that the judges should be 'shamed' for making what they deem to be a legally correct decision.

Lots of people have complained about the decision, I don't think a single one has pointed out any legal error the court made.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#64
(Original post by DSilva)
The judges names are not a secret. The judgement was published, along with the judges who heard the case. In this country, we have open justice.

Not that the judges should be 'shamed' for making what they deem to be a legally correct decision.

Lots of people have complained about the decision, I don't think a single one has pointed out any legal error the court made.
The unwise comment was referring to shaming bit. Or a story solely focused on them, as opposed to menttioing the judges name in the story.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report 2 weeks ago
#65
(Original post by generallee)
And if the current law isn't fit for purpose, update it to be suitable for our age of British born Jihadists.
What needs updating is the Foreign Enlistment Acts.

They were designed to prevent Brits from getting involved in other people's wars. The Acts worked well in the 19th century but broke down because they did not cater for the facts of the Spanish Civil War.

The key things you need are:-
1 An offence that is complete when the accused leaves the country, which means all the evidence is here and not in some war zone.
2 An offence that doesn't depend on the precise state of relations between the Jihadist group the accused is associating with and the UK.

The Government keeps creating unprosecutable terrorist offences. The first question with any new offence should be "and how are you going to prove that".
Last edited by nulli tertius; 2 weeks ago
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#66
Report 2 weeks ago
#66
(Original post by DSilva)
Their concern was to ensure that she is allowed a fair hearing to appeal decisions by the state to remove her citizenship.
Please explain to me why someone who has fought against Britain in the most inhumane ways possible should even be allowed on British soil.

As I've said, let the Kurds and/or Yazidis try her for war crimes. That, and if the Kurdistani version of the High Court hands down the death penalty, let her hang and don't play world policeman.
(Original post by londonmyst)
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.
As a friend of mine said in the TSR Conservative subforum, it's pointless to spend taxpayers' money on transporting her from Syria to the UK and ensuring that she doesn't escape along the way when we could simply hand her over to any Middle Eastern country and let them try her.

If the concerns that she'll be hanged in Kurdistan, Syria or Iraq are such that we need to ensure she isn't given the death penalty, we can always have Israel try her. They are both a Western ally and don't have capital punishment, so an Israeli trial with a religiously mixed panel should ensure justice is done.
(Original post by generallee)
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?
My very limited knowledge of English law would say that she could be tried under the Treason Act 1351.
(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.
Ahh, yumanrites lawyers.

Just to remind you, these are (broadly speaking) the same people that want to defund the police.
(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.
The Treason Act isn't repealed, it's just amended to change the maximum penalty from death to life without parole.

In my humble opinion we were right to hang Lord Haw Haw. Regardless of the morality of the death penalty (which IIRC is a subject we disagree on) Julius Streicher was hanged for spreading anti-Semitic propaganda in Der Stürmer and Joyce did much the same as him.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#67
Report 2 weeks ago
#67
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Please explain to me why someone who has fought against Britain in the most inhumane ways possible should even be allowed on British soil.

As I've said, let the Kurds and/or Yazidis try her for war crimes. That, and if the Kurdistani version of the High Court hands down the death penalty, let her hang and don't play world policeman.

As a friend of mine said in the TSR Conservative subforum, it's pointless to spend taxpayers' money on transporting her from Syria to the UK and ensuring that she doesn't escape along the way when we could simply hand her over to any Middle Eastern country and let them try her.

If the concerns that she'll be hanged in Kurdistan, Syria or Iraq are such that we need to ensure she isn't given the death penalty, we can always have Israel try her. They are both a Western ally and don't have capital punishment, so an Israeli trial with a religiously mixed panel should ensure justice is done.

My very limited knowledge of English law would say that she could be tried under the Treason Act 1351.

Ahh, yumanrites lawyers.

Just to remind you, these are (broadly speaking) the same people that want to defund the police.

The Treason Act isn't repealed, it's just amended to change the maximum penalty from death to life without parole.

In my humble opinion we were right to hang Lord Haw Haw. Regardless of the morality of the death penalty (which IIRC is a subject we disagree on) Julius Streicher was hanged for spreading anti-Semitic propaganda in Der Stürmer and Joyce did much the same as him.
To your first comment - because that's the law. And the law trumps your political desires.

And I would have thought the rule of law would matter to a Conservative such as yourself - I guess not.
0
reply
londonmyst
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#68
Report 2 weeks ago
#68
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
The Treason Act isn't repealed, it's just amended to change the maximum penalty from death to life without parole.

In my humble opinion we were right to hang Lord Haw Haw. Regardless of the morality of the death penalty (which IIRC is a subject we disagree on) Julius Streicher was hanged for spreading anti-Semitic propaganda in Der Stürmer and Joyce did much the same as him.
The Treachery Act 1940 was suspended in February 1946 and completely repealed in 1973.
It was passed on May 22 1940, intended to facilitate the prosecution and execution of enemy agents from overseas that were unlikely to be covered by the traditional high treason legislation in force at the time.

I think that Haw Haw was an obnoxious jew hate spewing loudmouth and significant source of embarrassment to British intelligence services.
While Streicher's revolting activities went way beyond creating, financing and publishing a never ending supply of racist antisemitic jew hate propaganda within the Nazi Party.
He was advocating for the mass murder of the western world's entire jewish population as early as the 1920s and continued long after Himmler had elbowed him out of the Nazi Party.
His good friend Arnold Leese sought to persuade him to expand his genocidal ambitions to include the entire world's jewish population.

Amazing that Leese managed to outlive both Haw Haw and Streicher, infesting post-war London with his vicious lunacy until the mid 1950s.
John Tydall and Colin Jordan were two of his best known proteges.
Leese's sinister legacy are his race hate magazines, vile speeches and library of conspiracy theorist writings.
He gave rise to the establishment of the NF & BNP (both funded by his generous financial backing of post-war fascism in England).
0
reply
Nabu123
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#69
Report 2 weeks ago
#69
People forget she was a child when she left. We need to really asses what's wrong with our country if children would rather go join a terrorist organisation than stay here.
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#70
Report 2 weeks ago
#70
(Original post by Nabu123)
People forget she was a child when she left. We need to really asses what's wrong with our country if children would rather go join a terrorist organisation than stay here.
Wasn't she 15?
0
reply
Nabu123
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#71
Report 2 weeks ago
#71
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Wasn't she 15?
Yeah she was, so legally she was a child
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#72
Report 2 weeks ago
#72
(Original post by Nabu123)
Yeah she was, so legally she was a child
Yes, but being legally a child doesn't make you exempt from the law and it doesn't make you an idiot. 15-year-olds are capable of understanding that joining ISIS is a bad idea.
1
reply
generallee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#73
Report 2 weeks ago
#73
(Original post by Nabu123)
People forget she was a child when she left. We need to really asses what's wrong with our country if children would rather go join a terrorist organisation than stay here.
Or what is wrong with the Muslim diaspora she grew up in that someone can be so badly brought up by their family as to do this...
1
reply
Nabu123
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#74
Report 2 weeks ago
#74
(Original post by Theloniouss)
Yes, but being legally a child doesn't make you exempt from the law and it doesn't make you an idiot. 15-year-olds are capable of understanding that joining ISIS is a bad idea.
Yeah but a 15 year old is way more vulnerable and naive so can be easily groomed and manipulated.
0
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#75
Report 2 weeks ago
#75
(Original post by Nabu123)
Yeah but a 15 year old is way more vulnerable and naive so can be easily groomed and manipulated.
To the point that they join ISIS? She is responsible for her own actions.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#76
Report 2 weeks ago
#76
(Original post by QE2)
If something can't be proven, how do we know it actually happened?
I thought we'd got beyond convicting people merely on suspicion.
Inference and assumption still have a role to play in the justice system. Just as if you find someone standing over a body its fair to assume they're involved. It is fair to assume she engaged in heinous activity as a paid up member of a terror group.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#77
Report 2 weeks ago
#77
(Original post by Nabu123)
Yeah but a 15 year old is way more vulnerable and naive so can be easily groomed and manipulated.
What makes you think she didnt just do it on her own volition? Not everyone who does something evil having been "groomed", some are just *****... like her.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#78
Report 2 weeks ago
#78
(Original post by DSilva)
To your first comment - because that's the law. And the law trumps your political desires.

And I would have thought the rule of law would matter to a Conservative such as yourself - I guess not.
Why can't she face trial in Syria, and why can't the appeal be done by video link from a Syrian prison?
(Original post by londonmyst)
The Treachery Act 1940 was suspended in February 1946 and completely repealed in 1973.
It was passed on May 22 1940, intended to facilitate the prosecution and execution of enemy agents from overseas that were unlikely to be covered by the traditional high treason legislation in force at the time.
My mistake then, I was thinking of the Treason Act 1351.
(Original post by londonmyst)
I think that Haw Haw was an obnoxious jew hate spewing loudmouth and significant source of embarrassment to British intelligence services.
That he was.
(Original post by londonmyst)
While Streicher's revolting activities went way beyond creating, financing and publishing a never ending supply of racist antisemitic jew hate propaganda within the Nazi Party.
He was advocating for the mass murder of the western world's entire jewish population as early as the 1920s and continued long after Himmler had elbowed him out of the Nazi Party.
Yes. His anti-Semitic propaganda was considered one of the causes of the Holocaust which got him hanged as an accessory to murder.

In my opinion Joyce's propaganda served a similar function and the precedent set by Streicher's indictment allowed us to charge Joyce with murder and treason.
(Original post by londonmyst)
His good friend Arnold Leese sought to persuade him to expand his genocidal ambitions to include the entire world's jewish population.

Amazing that Leese managed to outlive both Haw Haw and Streicher, infesting post-war London with his vicious lunacy until the mid 1950s.
John Tydall and Colin Jordan were two of his best known proteges.
Leese's sinister legacy are his race hate magazines, vile speeches and library of conspiracy theorist writings.
He gave rise to the establishment of the NF & BNP (both funded by his generous financial backing of post-war fascism in England).
I've not heard of Leese. Was he involved in any of Mosley's parties?
(Original post by Nabu123)
People forget she was a child when she left. We need to really asses what's wrong with our country if children would rather go join a terrorist organisation than stay here.
No, she was 15. Children are held responsible criminally at the age of 10.

Besides, most 15 year olds know that terrorism is a bad thing.
0
reply
DSilva
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#79
Report 2 weeks ago
#79
(Original post by LiberOfLondon)
Why can't she face trial in Syria, and why can't the appeal be done by video link from a Syrian prison?

My mistake then, I was thinking of the Treason Act 1351.

That he was.

Yes. His anti-Semitic propaganda was considered one of the causes of the Holocaust which got him hanged as an accessory to murder.

In my opinion Joyce's propaganda served a similar function and the precedent set by Streicher's indictment allowed us to charge Joyce with murder and treason.

I've not heard of Leese. Was he involved in any of Mosley's parties?

No, she was 15. Children are held responsible criminally at the age of 10.

Besides, most 15 year olds know that terrorism is a bad thing.
Have you read the judgment? If not, it's bizarre to be criticising it.

Even the Home Office accepted that she would not be able to have a fair trial from her current location. That was uncontested. Courts normally struggle to get a video link working from locations in England, never mind some random camp in Syria. The court stated that she would not have sufficient access to a video or telephone link.

The court, in full view of the evidence, decided that a fair trial could not be had unless she came to the UK.

Do you believe everyone has the right to a fair trial?
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#80
Report 2 weeks ago
#80
(Original post by DSilva)
Have you read the judgment? If not, it's bizarre to be criticising it.

Even the Home Office accepted that she would not be able to have a fair trial from her current location. That was uncontested. Courts normally struggle to get a video link working from locations in England, never mind some random camp in Syria. The court stated that she would not have sufficient access to a video or telephone link.

The court, in full view of the evidence, decided that a fair trial could not be had unless she came to the UK.

Do you believe everyone has the right to a fair trial?
Right. There is at least one city in Syria with internet access and power. It is far cheaper for us to hold a video link hearing from Damascus than to take her to the UK.

If there are concerns about the Syrian gov't ee can hold the meeting in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv or another Israeli city.
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