shrek Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 59 minutes ago, Saintslass said: It isn't but that isn't what you appeared to be suggesting. Helping ISIS would be to bring over to the UK an unrepentant ISIS affiliate as she would then be in situ ready to do her bit for the cause. Begum is unrepentant and at the very least an affiliate of ISIS by her very presence in the caliphate for four years married to a known ISIS terrorist. No, I suggested trial as applicable. I was that language as neither of us know anything about the case. It is obvious to me that ISIS would rather your course of action was taken. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Browny Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 4 hours ago, Saintslass said: Some of us think that the Home Secretary is not playing to the gallery at all but in fact is doing his job: protecting the British people. That is what he is paid to do. You sound more like Jeremy Corbyn, who publicly said he thought we should have a cuppa and a chat with ISIS. Are you on the clock here? I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 1 hour ago, Bob8 said: No, I suggested trial as applicable. I was that language as neither of us know anything about the case. It is obvious to me that ISIS would rather your course of action was taken. I'm basing my opinion on Begum's own testimony to camera. What are you basing yours on? A trial would be applicable if she were a British citizen and therefore we were obliged to take her back (although we are not obliged to bring her back). However, we are awaiting clarification of her status because she has Bangladeshi parents and in Bangladesh all citizens have inherited citizenship until the age of 21 when they have to apply for it. In addition, birth is not automatic citizenship in this country and so if her parents are Bangladeshi and her mother has not registered her as British then she isn't British and therefore we are not obliged by international law to take her back but rather Bangladesh would be so obliged by international law. Once we know for certain what her nationality actually is then we can assess whether trial is applicable. However, that has not yet been established as I assume she will be appealing the Home Secretary's decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Just now, Saintslass said: I'm basing my opinion on Begum's own testimony to camera. What are you basing yours on? A trial would be applicable if she were a British citizen and therefore we were obliged to take her back (although we are not obliged to bring her back). However, we are awaiting clarification of her status because she has Bangladeshi parents and in Bangladesh all citizens have inherited citizenship until the age of 21 when they have to apply for it. In addition, birth is not automatic citizenship in this country and so if her parents are Bangladeshi and her mother has not registered her as British then she isn't British and therefore we are not obliged by international law to take her back. Once we know for certain what her nationality actually is then we can assess whether trial is applicable. However, that has not yet been established as I assume she will be appealing the Home Secretary's decision. So, you are certain of her guilt on the statements made in a specific situation, but say we wait on the citizenship. I am not confident of either I say we apply the rule of law and do not assist ISIS. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 10 minutes ago, Bob8 said: So, you are certain of her guilt on the statements made in a specific situation, but say we wait on the citizenship. I am not confident of either I say we apply the rule of law and do not assist ISIS. A specific situation? She was asked direct questions, which were also recorded, and she gave unequivocal direct answers. I'm basing my opinion on the answers she gave to the questions she was asked. She condemned herself. Have you not watched any of her interviews? If not then I'd advise you do because then you would perhaps appreciate why I've come to the opinion that I have. I will ask again, what are you basing your opinion on that in banning her from entering the country we would be assisting ISIS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayakman Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Correct me if I am wrong, but a government is under no legal obligation to help a citizen get to its border. Further, the concept of citizenship in Western thought was developed in the Ancient Greek city states... it was quite common to ban or strip citizenship in those times...Athens did it all of the time. I don't know about the logic of voluntarily giving up a citizenship...which I believe this person did when they burned their passport publicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 5 minutes ago, Saintslass said: A specific situation? She was asked direct questions, which were also recorded, and she gave unequivocal direct answers. I'm basing my opinion on the answers she gave to the questions she was asked. She condemned herself. Have you not watched any of her interviews? If not then I'd advise you do because then you would perhaps appreciate why I've come to the opinion that I have. I will ask again, what are you basing your opinion on that in banning her from entering the country we would be assisting ISIS? Yes. That is why I referred to a trial seeming be to a reasonable thing. As for ISIS: 8 hours ago, Bob8 said: To me, it does seem there is a question of what would be playing into the terrorist hands. Were you to be ISIS, I suspect you would want the UK to be seen to legitimise the claim that the UK have no moral authority and are against Islam. The last thing ISIS would want is for the UK is see her as a UK citizen and give her a legitimate trial. Of course, this does not feel good, and it can be tempting to give in to what ISIS want for the sake of our feelings. I understand ignoring the rule of law would make us feel better. I do not think that justifies helping ISIS, you are free to argue otherwise and I respect that. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 9 hours ago, Kayakman said: Correct me if I am wrong, but a government is under no legal obligation to help a citizen get to its border. Covered at the start. No one is suggesting going and fetching her. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Future is League Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 1 hour ago, gingerjon said: Covered at the start. No one is suggesting going and fetching her. Probably Corbyn would if he was PM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 11 hours ago, Bob8 said: Yes. That is why I referred to a trial seeming be to a reasonable thing. As for ISIS: I understand ignoring the rule of law would make us feel better. I do not think that justifies helping ISIS, you are free to argue otherwise and I respect that. I have never suggested ignoring the rule of law. I have said consistently that if she is a British citizen then we have to take her back unless we would be breaking international law. What I have also said is that our obligations are as yet unclear because her status is under question. If the Home Secretary has been advised that she is a dual national Bangladeshi British then he is within his rights to revoke her citizenship as he isn't leaving her stateless. 100 people have had their British citizenship revoked. I don't remember any outcry on here about any of them. You still haven't explained though why you think revoking her citizenship would help ISIS. Why do you think you have understood the ISIS mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckn Posted February 24, 2019 Author Share Posted February 24, 2019 9 minutes ago, Saintslass said: I have never suggested ignoring the rule of law. I have said consistently that if she is a British citizen then we have to take her back unless we would be breaking international law. What I have also said is that our obligations are as yet unclear because her status is under question. If the Home Secretary has been advised that she is a dual national Bangladeshi British then he is within his rights to revoke her citizenship as he isn't leaving her stateless. 100 people have had their British citizenship revoked. I don't remember any outcry on here about any of them. You still haven't explained though why you think revoking her citizenship would help ISIS. Why do you think you have understood the ISIS mind? Yet again, how is her citizenship under question? She’s British born and acknowledged as a British citizen by the Home Secretary. Her “dual nationality” was made up by Javid though who conveniently mis-spoke when he said she had Bangladeshi 2nd citizenship, when the truth is that she could apply for 2nd citizenship and could be given it but never had done so. Bangladesh have said that they wouldn’t let her in as she isn’t their citizen and also for them to accept someone for 2nd citizenship under the rules, they have to have a good moral character and be accepted under review, it’s not automatic. I’m sure you’re good enough to go and look at the background of the 100 people and find out why they were legally excluded. I think you’ll struggle to find a match to the circumstances with this case. Can you, just once, admit you’re wrong? Even Jacob Rees-Mogg can see it... "When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 I was, as a kid, confused by people who apparently were against the IRA thought that internment should be brought back. Obviously, they would be great for strengthening the IRA. I can see now the idea was to make them feel better and they put their feelings as the most important thing. It is a different priorities. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 3 hours ago, ckn said: Yet again, how is her citizenship under question? She’s British born and acknowledged as a British citizen by the Home Secretary. Her “dual nationality” was made up by Javid though who conveniently mis-spoke when he said she had Bangladeshi 2nd citizenship, when the truth is that she could apply for 2nd citizenship and could be given it but never had done so. Bangladesh have said that they wouldn’t let her in as she isn’t their citizen and also for them to accept someone for 2nd citizenship under the rules, they have to have a good moral character and be accepted under review, it’s not automatic. I’m sure you’re good enough to go and look at the background of the 100 people and find out why they were legally excluded. I think you’ll struggle to find a match to the circumstances with this case. Can you, just once, admit you’re wrong? Even Jacob Rees-Mogg can see it... Being British born does not automatically mean a person is a British citizen, as I explained earlier in this thread, and that has been the case since 1983. Also, nationality is now passed by way of the mother (rather than the father, as previously). If the mother is Bangladeshi in this instance, and she is, then the child would also be Bangladeshi unless the mother had registered the child as British or the mother had dual citizenship in which case the child would also have dual nationality. If the child has dual nationality then Javid is legally entitled to strip her of her British citizenship as he does not make her stateless in so doing. In Bangladesh if the parents of a citizen are Bangladeshi (and both her parents are, with her father living in Bangladesh) the citizen inherits their Bangladeshi citizenship up to being 21 when they have to apply for it. Therefore, it could be that Bangladesh would be in breach of international law if they refuse to take her because she is not yet 21. Jacob Rees-Mogg doesn't think she should be stripped of her citizenship. He didn't say she couldn't be. I also said in my first post on this subject that we would have to take her in if it proves to be that she is a British citizen. Therefore, it is not a question of me being wrong. What I have said is perfectly correct. What this is a case of is you coming to the conclusion that you think she should be allowed back into the country and I do not. It's a simple case of us disagreeing with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedford Roughyed Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 Again - If the home secretary has stripped her of her citizenship, it is very safe to say that she was a British citizen in the first place. If she wasn't a British citizen then he would not of gone to all the effort in the first place. She is/was a British citizen. The question is whether she is a Bangladeshi citizen, they say not. I'm sure it will end up in court to decide if she can be stripped of her citizenship. With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 1 minute ago, Bedford Roughyed said: I'm sure it will end up in court to decide if she can be stripped of her citizenship. Which is what I said way back. If she is a British citizen - as opposed to a British & Bangladeshi dual national (to satisfy your penchant for pedantry!) - then we have no choice but to take her back if she chooses to return. However, if it is found that she has British and Bangladeshi dual nationality - as opposed to being a British citizen - then stripping her of the British element of that dual nationality is perfectly legal and I'm all for it. And as I have also just said, Bangladesh may be in breach of their international obligations by refusing her regardless of what their foreign minister or whoever he was says. As I also said in my earlier post, we will find out in due course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 41 minutes ago, Shadow said: You claim we can't say how ISIS think, but then in the very next sentence you claim to know how some of them think. Did you think that through at all before you posted it? Yes I did. I meant that we can't say how ISIS as an organisation think due to the structure. There are many autonomous councils below the main leadership. Applying western reasoning to ISIS isn't necessarily going to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanaBull Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 What you can be sure if when principles a country says it supports are bypassed in certain cases, it creates the opportunity for propaganda exploitation. I’m sure Begum would be more effective pontificating about her treatment by the UK outside of the UK than being brought back, charged with a crime, tried, potentially found guilty, punished, then her whereabouts and online activity closely monitored. Quite honestly I don’t think the authorities have good enough evidence of any actual crimes, being a pig-ignorant gobshyte isn’t a crime, though if there is sufficient scope within current anti-terror legislation that being part of a proscribed organization is enough (please enlighten if anyone knows) to warrant a charge that would be another thing entirely. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, CanaBull said: What you can be sure if when principles a country says it supports are bypassed in certain cases, it creates the opportunity for propaganda exploitation. I’m sure Begum would be more effective pontificating about her treatment by the UK outside of the UK than being brought back, charged with a crime, tried, potentially found guilty, punished, then her whereabouts and online activity closely monitored. Quite honestly I don’t think the authorities have good enough evidence of any actual crimes, being a pig-ignorant gobshyte isn’t a crime, though if there is sufficient scope within current anti-terror legislation that being part of a proscribed organization is enough (please enlighten if anyone knows) to warrant a charge that would be another thing entirely. Going to be interesting to see how this plays out. It was a frequent theme in Britain during the Troubles. Lots of British people were torn between wanting to undermine the IRA and those wanting to do things that would really strengthen the IRA but make them feel better. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanaBull Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 15 minutes ago, Bob8 said: It was a frequent theme in Britain during the Troubles. Lots of British people were torn between wanting to undermine the IRA and those wanting to do things that would really strengthen the IRA but make them feel better. Indeed, it often happens that some who call for the application of the law most stringently are the same ones willing for it to be ignored when comfortable or convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob8 Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 2 minutes ago, CanaBull said: Indeed, it often happens that some who call for the application of the law most stringently are the same ones willing for it to be ignored when comfortable or convenient. It does not make them wrong or stupid. Peoples' feelings matter to them. "You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnmatrix Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 Be careful what we wish for, it could be one of us on here who the government decided to make stateless because they happen not to like our views Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintslass Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 8 minutes ago, johnmatrix said: Be careful what we wish for, it could be one of us on here who the government decided to make stateless because they happen not to like our views While I do agree that freedom of speech is being continually chipped away in the UK, we are a long way from being China or North Korea, which is what we would have to be for the content of your post to be remotely accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Niels Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 29 minutes ago, Saintslass said: While I do agree that freedom of speech is being continually chipped away in the UK, we are a long way from being China or North Korea, which is what we would have to be for the content of your post to be remotely accurate. I agree. Also it's a lot more than not liking her views. Some of the Jihadi brides were involved in beating girls, children before they were raped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Niels said: I agree. Also it's a lot more than not liking her views. Some of the Jihadi brides were involved in beating girls, children before they were raped. If she did that, charge her. If we don't know she did that then the comment means nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.