What do we think?

D

Deleted member 142

Guest
BUT.....if its been revoked then she is NOT a British citizen is she??? only British citizens can claim legal aid
That’s not true. Anyone who meets the criteria can apply for legal aid in the UK. For instance, those seeking asylum and fighting a repatriation order.

No mention of citizenship is made in the eligibility test.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,625
The legal system and adherence to it has everything to do with democracy.
The right of the individual to chose what they wish to do surely supersedes that?

When she left she chose to turn her back on democracy & justice in pursuit of a hideous medieval ideology.

She was a member of the Hisba and the Telegraph & Independent report:

"Members of our group from Raqqa knew her well,” said Aghiad al-Kheder, an activist from Deir ez-Zor who founded an anti-Isis collective that published information about Isis crimes from sources on the ground. The hisba metes out punishment to those found flouting Isis laws on how to dress and behave. "

She doesn`t deserve a safety net just because her team "lost".
 
D

Deleted member 142

Guest
The law is the law. It may need to be changed, but until it is it must be applied uniformly and fairly. If we start to make exceptions arbitrarily we will end up in a dreadful mess.
 

AbbeyOx

Well-known member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
1,253
The law is the law. It may need to be changed, but until it is it must be applied uniformly and fairly. If we start to make exceptions arbitrarily we will end up in a dreadful mess.
true but sometimes these laws can be taken advantage of too easily. people know they can get decent solicitors involved and not be accountable for their own actions. it's like a burglar who breaks in to rob your house knowing if you defend yourself and your property they've got a good chance of compensation if you lay a finger on them
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,551
true but sometimes these laws can be taken advantage of too easily. people know they can get decent solicitors involved and not be accountable for their own actions. it's like a burglar who breaks in to rob your house knowing if you defend yourself and your property they've got a good chance of compensation if you lay a finger on them
Is that actually true? I know you aren't allowed to use 'unreasonable force' and bash someone's head in with a baseball bat because they've nicked one of your hanging baskets, but I have my doubts about courts awarding compensation if you punched someone who broke into your house!
 
D

Deleted member 142

Guest
true but sometimes these laws can be taken advantage of too easily. people know they can get decent solicitors involved and not be accountable for their own actions. it's like a burglar who breaks in to rob your house knowing if you defend yourself and your property they've got a good chance of compensation if you lay a finger on them
In which case the law should be changed. It may be imperfect but the alternative is anarchy and Daily Mail arbitration.
 

AbbeyOx

Well-known member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
1,253
Is that actually true? I know you aren't allowed to use 'unreasonable force' and bash someone's head in with a baseball bat because they've nicked one of your hanging baskets, but I have my doubts about courts awarding compensation if you punched someone who broke into your house!
ok slight exaggeration, but my point was that laws seem favourable to the offender more than the victim. you only have to read the ox Mail to see some of the lenient sentences given out.
this girl chose to support Isis, she knew what she was getting into and because it's not worked out how she wanted, can now use British law and money to bail her out
 

Pete Burrett

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,025
In which case the law should be changed. It may be imperfect but the alternative is anarchy and Daily Mail arbitration.
Bingo. This is the crux of it. The law is the law. One might not agree with a particular law, but that changes nothing. We can't pick and choose which laws to obey based on what we think is 'fair' or 'reasonable', or because there is a Muslim elephant in the room.

I fully understand anyone having qualms about helping this individual, but if you think a law needs changing, contact your MP, not the pages of a football forum.
 
Last edited:

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,625
Bingo. This is the crux of it. The law is the law. One might not agree with a particular law, but that changes nothing. We can't pick and choose which laws to obey based on what we think is 'fair' or 'reasonable', or because there is a Muslim elephant in the room.

I fully understand anyone having qualms about helping this individual, but if you think a law needs changing, contact your MP, not the pages of a football forum.
Who are well renowned for implementing the will of the people...............or not.

In fact lets go the whole hog and have referendums on.......

1. The Death Penalty.
2. Readmitting known ISIS sympathisers/supporters/fighters.
3. The right to British Citizenship.
4. Leaving the EU.

😁;):unsure:
 

AbbeyOx

Well-known member
Joined
15 Jan 2019
Messages
1,253
my argument has nothing to do with being a muslim. it’s the simple fact, in this case, someone wanting away from this country and it’s laws then expecting to come back and have the taxpayers fund everything.
it’s the system that’s wrong and people exploit it when it suits
 

Pete Burrett

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,025
Who are well renowned for implementing the will of the people...............or not.

In fact lets go the whole hog and have referendums on.......

1. The Death Penalty.
2. Readmitting known ISIS sympathisers/supporters/fighters.
3. The right to British Citizenship.
4. Leaving the EU.

😁;):unsure:
And what is ‘the will of the people’ in this case? Not seen a relevant opinion poll myself, and even if a statistically meaningful poll of the UK population showed a majority against legal aid in this case, so what? The law of the land would need to be changed through parliament to implement change.

People are free to feel outrage about anything, and (within reason) to rant and rail about it on social media, but democratic process - appararently loved by so many on here - has to be adhered to in a .... democracy!
 

Pete Burrett

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
1,025
my argument has nothing to do with being a muslim. it’s the simple fact, in this case, someone wanting away from this country and it’s laws then expecting to come back and have the taxpayers fund everything.
it’s the system that’s wrong and people exploit it when it suits
I repeat, do something to get the law changed then. Just feeling annoyed about something achieves nothing.
 

Paul Cannell

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,296
Who are well renowned for implementing the will of the people...............or not.

In fact lets go the whole hog and have referendums on.......

1. The Death Penalty.
2. Readmitting known ISIS sympathisers/supporters/fighters.
3. The right to British Citizenship.
4. Leaving the EU.

😁;):unsure:
Nice one. If I were the sort of person who laughed at fool's mate against an ingenue chess player I'd join you. But of course, Burrett misunderstands 'representative democracy' - the sort of constitution the UK has, and which the US attempted to codify - and which is intended to moderate the 'will of the people at any particular moment, against the interests of the body of the state (all of the people, institutions, business and all that) and the basic principles of human rights in general and as they apply to each individual.

The system's flawed, of course; it depends on preventing what the Federalist Papers call 'Interests' from preventing free flow of information, access to authority and buying power (look at the lobbying industry and the employment activities 'regulated' by ACOBA in the UK to see how this works, on members of the legislature having some interest in (what I call above) the interests of the body of the state.

In order to do this it relies on a bureaucracy, not least to analyse responsibilities and outcomes. You can download a report here that outlines the complexities and risks involved in the way citizenship can be removed today.

I don't believe that any UK politician should be able to make a person stateless who is previously rightly eligible for citizenship (like born here) by depriving them of that citizenship 'just like that', which is how it works and how this case was done. I'm not sure given the international implications that I want our country (I'm patriotic and I want the UK to lead the world in 'doing the right thing') to dump it's problems on other countries.

My belief has nothing to do with Tamima Begum or her crimes, nor with the nature of this government. It's about laws and how the system can help us to achieve a tolerant society in the UK while holding our heads up in the world. There's an old saying that 'hard cases make bad law' - this is a hard case.
 

Paul Cannell

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
2,296
I repeat, do something to get the law changed then. Just feeling annoyed about something achieves nothing.
Ultimately, Burrett's right about this. If you want to live in a civilised society this is how we have to roll.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,625
I`ll repeat that, even when the majority tell the elected MP`s what to do, they don`t do it.

The insidious change in society that "nobody can be a loser" is the root of the problem.
The harsh reality of life is that some win, some lose.
This person made a choice and lost.
That should not give her the right to appeal and try to win.
Sometimes the will of the majority should be heard and acted upon.
Failing to do that gives very undesirable people leverage and support.
 

Sarge

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
17,899
Although capital punishment all but doesnt exist in the uk, isnt it still an option albeit on paper for treason and treasonable acts?

Potentially a dangerous gamble by the isis bride , as if she wins british citizenship back , as a british citizen she is subject to the full weight of the law including potential acts of treason

It is surprising that any one involved with the failed attempt to establish isis as an Islamist state , committing all manner of atrocities in the process , havent yet faced an international court to answer for thier involvement in war crimes
 

cassox

Active member
Joined
9 May 2018
Messages
362
Although capital punishment all but doesnt exist in the uk, isnt it still an option albeit on paper for treason and treasonable acts?

Potentially a dangerous gamble by the isis bride , as if she wins british citizenship back , as a british citizen she is subject to the full weight of the law including potential acts of treason

It is surprising that any one involved with the failed attempt to establish isis as an Islamist state , committing all manner of atrocities in the process , havent yet faced an international court to answer for thier involvement in war crimes
Just dish out a 40 year sentence,it should dissuade other scum from returning.
 

Essexyellows

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,625
Although capital punishment all but doesnt exist in the uk, isnt it still an option albeit on paper for treason and treasonable acts?

Potentially a dangerous gamble by the isis bride , as if she wins british citizenship back , as a british citizen she is subject to the full weight of the law including potential acts of treason

It is surprising that any one involved with the failed attempt to establish isis as an Islamist state , committing all manner of atrocities in the process , havent yet faced an international court to answer for thier involvement in war crimes
Death penalty for Treason was taken out of law by the 1998 Crime & Disorder Act.
The Treason Act itself (originating in 1351!) needs an update so, if such people return, they get a mandatory whole life term with no parole.
The Law Commission planned to review it in 2008 but the Treason part of the review was "left out" so remains, pretty much, as it was in 1351.
The powers that be say there are enough alternative powers (Terrorism Act etc) that they don`t need to dust off Treason charges or law.
 
Top Bottom