• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Gutter Boy said:
It doesn't work like that

All the main parties are over 100 years old (Tories and Liberal go back to the early nineteenth century) and have massive infrastructures. Even the Lib Dems have hundreds of councillors, tens of thousands of members, lots of resources. 5 or 6 individuals would have nothing, other than their seats for the next 3.5 years.

Upstart parties just can't operate in FPTP. Even UKIP never got an MP elected (just Carswell defecting). A new party would just get wiped out at the next general elections. It's a pretty kamikaze move
Click to expand...
No. But if they get enough support and threaten to take some of the Lib Votes, they would be primed for a merger.
 
For those who don't want the ISIS girl to come back, presumably they don't agree with the rule of law. Her right to return has nothing to do with her political beliefs, but everything to do with the law. If the law says she is a British citizen and therefore has a right to return, then that is the law.

What people might argue is that the law should be changed, or that she should be subject to certain conditions, treated in a certain way when she does return, should she return etc. Or that it is a stupid law. But her right to return is a question of law.

On the issue as a moral issue. Is it right that the government should determine that someone knows their own mind sufficiently aged 15 to make the decision that she did and then be denied the right of citizenship as a result yet determine that at the same age she wasn't old enough to know her mind sufficiently to vote? Or what about UK citizens that serve as mercenaries in foreign conflicts, should they be allowed back? What about mercenaries fighting in Yemen on the Saudi/UAE side? Or other African conflicts?

I'm not suggesting that what the girl did was morally right - i don't think it was - but more that situations like this are rarely as binary as opinions on social media might suggest.
 
It's still No Vote versus extension of Article 50 - has been for months.
I'm betting on extension but it's close. Opposition to No Deal too fragmented at moment, although beginning to coalesce.

Best way to game it is, how can ERG drag it out until March 29th. They made a mistake by voting against gov motion yesterday - May probably thought she could picke them off with some concessions closer to the line. Now she must realise that No deal is their objective. Nevertheless ERG tactics must still be to stall, thinking at 90+ that May cannot get deal through without their support ro that of opposition which has already singalled won't vote for M ay deal.

Therefore only coalition of Tory/opp backbenchers can scupper ERG No deal. Q: when will they have the balls to step up and get it done. In doing so lose party whip, probably split both parties in two, and incur ire of large proportion of electorate.

Tough decision -but if truly interested in national interests rather than own personal career they should get on with it.
 
I have to say after years of nothing being talked about at work, everyone is getting nervy due to european travel to make sales calls and work
 
ringo said:
For those who don't want the ISIS girl to come back, presumably they don't agree with the rule of law. Her right to return has nothing to do with her political beliefs, but everything to do with the law. If the law says she is a British citizen and therefore has a right to return, then that is the law.

What people might argue is that the law should be changed, or that she should be subject to certain conditions, treated in a certain way when she does return, should she return etc. Or that it is a stupid law. But her right to return is a question of law.

On the issue as a moral issue. Is it right that the government should determine that someone knows their own mind sufficiently aged 15 to make the decision that she did and then be denied the right of citizenship as a result yet determine that at the same age she wasn't old enough to know her mind sufficiently to vote? Or what about UK citizens that serve as mercenaries in foreign conflicts, should they be allowed back? What about mercenaries fighting in Yemen on the Saudi/UAE side? Or other African conflicts?

I'm not suggesting that what the girl did was morally right - i don't think it was - but more that situations like this are rarely as binary as opinions on social media might suggest.
Click to expand...

My comment was solely opinion on the matter.

I have read the interview and from her own comments feel she shows no remorse or regret to her life choices. She is now 19 and made the said comments.

I do not know the ins and outs of the law but if you leave the country to join a terror organisation I thought your citizenship was revoked. If that is the case then she’s no longer our problem. If it’s not the case and she can return by law she should be prosecuted on her return.

Same goes for the mercineries If they’ve broken our laws they to should be prosecuted.

Again I personally feel she just wants to come back for an easy ride. NHS baby treatment and housing etc. As far as I’m concerned she can stay put .
 
StephenH said:
She has made her bed etc.
I have no time for her, she is a waste of oxygen.
Click to expand...
I don't know about you, but I did some pretty stupid things at 15, I was also fairly impressionable. Fortunately they didn't include going to fight with terrorists in a foreign war.

They did involve breaking the law. However, while some people might be truly evil and deserving of the harshest punishment, do we think that this is the case here? Wouldn't it be better if the law was upheld and she became a useful and productive member of society. I'm sure she will be monitored and put through various reeducation programmes. But even if the outcome is not a good one, she still has rights. That is just the law. And as I said previously - maybe the law needs to be redrafted.
 
djp82 said:
My comment was solely opinion on the matter.

I have read the interview and from her own comments feel she shows no remorse or regret to her life choices. She is now 19 and made the said comments.

I do not know the ins and outs of the law but if you leave the country to join a terror organisation I thought your citizenship was revoked. If that is the case then she’s no longer our problem. If it’s not the case and she can return by law she should be prosecuted on her return.

Same goes for the mercenaries If they’ve broken our laws they to should be prosecuted.

Again I personally feel she just wants to come back for an easy ride. NHS baby treatment and housing etc. As far as I’m concerned she can stay put .
Click to expand...

I agree with you that, on the face of it, it seems wrong that someone who has done what she has, and expresses no remorse, then wishes to return because she wishes to take advantages of services which would not be available if we had a regime here like the one that she was supporting. However, as I understand it, as British citizen she has a right to return, and the Secretary of state while expressing a sentiment, is not legally correct and has no power to prevent her returning. She would, of course, be prosecuted here subsequently, if she had committed a crime.

But my main points were 1) We have to respect the rule of law, otherwise we are back to Hobbes' "nasty, brutish and short" life. 2) Things are often more complex than social and mainstream media would have us believe.
 
ringo said:
For those who don't want the ISIS girl to come back, presumably they don't agree with the rule of law. Her right to return has nothing to do with her political beliefs, but everything to do with the law. If the law says she is a British citizen and therefore has a right to return, then that is the law.

What people might argue is that the law should be changed, or that she should be subject to certain conditions, treated in a certain way when she does return, should she return etc. Or that it is a stupid law. But her right to return is a question of law.

On the issue as a moral issue. Is it right that the government should determine that someone knows their own mind sufficiently aged 15 to make the decision that she did and then be denied the right of citizenship as a result yet determine that at the same age she wasn't old enough to know her mind sufficiently to vote? Or what about UK citizens that serve as mercenaries in foreign conflicts, should they be allowed back? What about mercenaries fighting in Yemen on the Saudi/UAE side? Or other African conflicts?

I'm not suggesting that what the girl did was morally right - i don't think it was - but more that situations like this are rarely as binary as opinions on social media might suggest.
Click to expand...

Yeh you are 100% right, I do not agree with rule of law, there is nothing wrong with not agreeing with laws.

Ultimately the woman decided to join a terrorist operation and has since to this day said she has no regrets, she is no longer 15 but she says she has no regrets, for me thats enough of what I need to know.

There are also rules that support this:

British citizens can be subjected to temporary exclusion orders (TEOs), which are imposed by the home secretary and make it illegal to return to the UK without notifying authorities.

Ultimately she is a jihadi and should at the very least be tried for crimes as a result
 
ringo said:
Things are often more complex than social and mainstream media would have us believe.
Click to expand...

Yeh I agree with this and there is a level of grooming but there is a larger picture on this. She left London at 15, took a flight to Turkey and crossed the border to join ISIS and applied for an English speaking ISIS husband and is now pregnant. Thats not making the choice to go to the local corner shop and shoplift or join the girl guides nor is it getting fingered by the local chav round the back of the bikeshed and saying opps sorry I made a mistake, thats a choice and a pretty strong choice at that, its also a pretty black and white choice between black and white. Made worse by the fact she is now older and is in no way showing any remorse.

For me she is a terrorist as she is part of a terrorist organisation and supports their mantra, she should be tried as such woman or no woman, kid or no kid.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yeh you are 400% right, I do not agree with rule of law, there is nothing wrong with not agreeing with laws.

Ultimately the woman decided to join a terrorist operation and has since to this day said she has no regrets, she is no longer 15 but she says she has no regrets, for me thats enough of what I need to know.

There are also rules that support this:

British citizens can be subjected to temporary exclusion orders (TEOs), which are imposed by the home secretary and make it illegal to return to the UK without notifying authorities.

Ultimately she is a jihadi and should at the very least be tried for crimes as a result
Click to expand...

Re TEOs. Yes and assuming Sec of State can satisfy court of conditions - esp
(3)Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom.
(4)Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual.

then maybe they will seek to do that. Although that wasn't made clear by Sajid Javid. And if they find a way within existing legal framework to revoke citizenship then fair enough.

As for disagreeing with laws. Absolutely. As an individual we can disagree with specific laws, and seek to change them, or simply refuse to abide by them and suffer the consequences. However as a citizen I expect the government to adhere to the law. For if we allow the government to apply the law or not, as it sees fit, where would we be then.
 
ringo said:
Re TEOs. Yes and assuming Sec of State can satisfy court of conditions - esp
(3)Condition A is that the Secretary of State reasonably suspects that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity outside the United Kingdom.
(4)Condition B is that the Secretary of State reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public in the United Kingdom from a risk of terrorism, for a temporary exclusion order to be imposed on the individual.
Click to expand...

SHould be good on both counts then.

See you treacle, Saudi Arabia will be good for her
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Cant say Ive been following matters in any real depth, but I was sure thats what they were doing and have seen nothing since.

Maybe your right?
Click to expand...

I think they were found in breach of international law, basically you take someones passport and they are then nationals of nowhere. Easier if like the other two girls that went with them that they get killed in conflict, saves all that red tape and having to worry about loony lefties who say they should be allowed back into a society they were actively against
 
Is she a victim or perpetrator?

...maybe both? Difficult one morally and legally. I think you would need some pledge or repentance.

There is a reason nations are trying to wipe out ISIS in the badlands of Syria; they are not trying to take prisoners.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back