National News Shamima Begum

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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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.
 
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
 
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:
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
And she`s still working the media .............

Although she is 100% right on this..............
"I know there are some people, no matter what I say or what I do, they will not believe that I have changed, believe that I want to help," she said."

Once a religious fundamentalist always a religious fundamentalist.

Needs brainwashing.......... with a couple of 9mm`s.
 
And she`s still working the media .............

Although she is 100% right on this..............
"I know there are some people, no matter what I say or what I do, they will not believe that I have changed, believe that I want to help," she said."

Once a religious fundamentalist always a religious fundamentalist.

Needs brainwashing.......... with a couple of 9mm`s.
The BBC/her legal team will keep buttering people up until she's allowed back. Only a matter of time.
 
The BBC/her legal team will keep buttering people up until she's allowed back. Only a matter of time.

For someone stuck in a "hell hole" refugee camp she`s looking very well.
At risk of cholera not that long ago.
 
As a British citizen she is subject to British law ...if she comes back Id hope the full force of the law is applied.

as abhorrent as it is, given her reported comments about no regrets etc , she was initially groomed to go off to Syria to become a jihadi bride/ sex slave to radicalised killers, some may perceive she is a victim (of radicalisation if nothing else? ), .... as she doesnt have dual nationality, under international law she cannot have her (British) citizenship revoked leaving her stateless.... however British/ English and Welsh law can be applied when she sets foot on uk soil. I for one hope she is handed a long and lengthy period of incarceration ,along with being put through a de radicalisation programme. Or even, as she could be, be put on trial for treason- for which i think there is still the option of capital punishment (hanging) for any British citizen found guilty of treason?
Yep @Scotchegg can lock her door
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom