Shamima Begum Not Allowed Back. (28 Viewers)
- Thread starter pastythegreat
- Start date
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
It doesn't surprise me that the left have finally found a grooming victim they actually care about. There is absolutely no one with any sense of sanity that would want her back in the UK. Hiding behind the legalities is a convenient excuse to get her back for some people.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Get. And I cannot say this strongly enough. To fuck.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
That is my genuine belief, protecting the rule of law and not administering it ad hoc, are you calling me a liar?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
It was always going to happen. It’s international law, get over it. Wanting her back and accepting that she was always coming back are completely different things.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Oh grow up you tit
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Hit a sore nerve here. Can't say some of you didn't deserve it. If I was wrong then I doubt I would have got such a reaction.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
no, you're saying people want her back and are hiding behind wanting due process upheld, the latter is what I'm interested in, that's my take, are you calling me a liar?
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
I think using the due process involved is giving people an excuse to say we have to have her back, absolutely yes.
Whether you are one of them, I don't know.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
so what happens if next they decide to withdraw citizenship from all the idiots who are on their way home from Magaluf having caused them to lock down the strip, what then?
You may think it's a stupid comparison but once you set a precedent it's a slippery slope.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Yes. Suggesting to people who have close friends that were victims of grooming that they don’t care about grooming victims hit a nerve. Well done you master debater. Really got to the heart of the issue.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Yes, that is a ridiculous comparison and I expected better from you to be honest.
Talking about louts in Magaluf to justify a returning jihadi? Mind you, there are some that would have the brit abroad tribe exiled whilst allowing Shamima Begum to roam the streets.
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
You were the one that took offence. Go back on several threads on this forum and you have argument upon argument of people denying the problem. Your issue should be with them, not with me.
Sadly, what I said has a large element of truth. There are many people that pull the 'we should shut the hell up for the sake of diversity' argument, that are quite pro Shamima Begum being allowed to return to the UK indefinitely.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
such as?
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
But look at the States this week, police attack a man in a wheel chair, attack an unarmed veteran with batons, unmarked police snatching people off the streets in Portland. How do you think that happened, it started with people turning a blind eye to police brutality because the victim was a gang banger and this is where it ends up.
It's why doctors take the hippocratic oath, otherwise they're asked to treat a paedo, they say no, everyone's fine with it, then its I'm not treating them because of who they voted for, or what team they support but the precedent has been set.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's the important part. Our legal system is reliant on that so if you set the precedent that the government can make people stateless then there's nothing to stop the same applying to anyone else they want to remove citizenship from.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
exactly, I keep saying it but the rule of law cannot be administered ad hoc. It would be fucking chaos if it was.
Unfortunately, that sometimes protects people like her.
Ring Of Steel
Well-Known Member
"There are many people that pull the 'we should shut the hell up for the sake of diversity' argument, that are quite pro Shamima Begum being allowed to return to the UK indefinitely. "
ok so you made that up then, thought so.
ok so you made that up then, thought so.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Shamima or none of the others that fucked off to join isis should be allowed back anywhere near this country to appeal anything, the system is broken and an embarrassment
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
So the logical conclusion is you need to change the system. Thats a perfectly valid argument to have but how would that work in practice? If we decide to ignore international law and make people stateless are we expecting other countries to co-operate and take these people for us?
IMO the more immediate issue is that we abolished indefinite imprisonment for public protection and don't seem to have put anything in place to replace it.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
And of course if the government win and she gets sent to Bangladesh never to be seen or heard of again then I’m sure ESB1 will be the first to thank all of us that “wanted her back” for making sure she’s gone for good.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Mate people that chose to go and join a terrorist organisation should be automatically classed as stateless, she chose to do them things so for her to now be able to try and come back is a fucking insult
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Yeah but what about if he wins her appeal
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
but that's a different argument, if the system needs changing then as I keep stating, it can't be done ad hoc.
The same institutions and processes that put these measures in place need to reverse them.
Remember that this recently was a major factor in Windrush which I think most, apart from our resident racists, would agree was a scandal, especially for those who came here as children but ended up deported.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Yes but we’re not talking about that are we were talking about terrorists, there should be change so they can’t appeal like they are
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
As I said thats fine but if you're taking that stance how would you implement it on a practical level. Making someone stateless is against International law so lets assume we decide to ignore that and do it anyway how do you get other countries to cooperate? We don't want her here so why are you expecting another country, that she has no connection to, to take her.
Just interested on how you would do it on a practical level. Easy to go 'we don't want her back', none of us do, but how do you achieve that, just point blank refuse to take her and hope other counties accept us breaking international law?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I thought you were talking about Georgia (The country) for a moment there. Saw something on the “GE” they’re having their at the moment. Shocking what’s going on there at the moment.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Then British sovereign law is upheld.
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
There will be an immense cost to us all as she will either be protected or given a new identity, we will never get that investment back as she is hardly a future brain surgeon.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Leave her where she is now
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Under what legal framework? The SDF are currently detaining her while an acknowledged legal process is worked through. What is being suggested is that we ignore the law and do our own thing. Should that happen for what reason would the SDF continue to hold her and prevent her travelling to the UK?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
No, you're talking shit and I called you out. Prick
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Dangerous road. “Terrorist” might seem well defined to you with modern Islamic terror, but it’s not. It’s basically “anyone the government doesn’t like”. Could be views about the environment or white nationalism or whatever you feel strongly enough about to attempt to disrupt normal every day working for.
Big statement to say anyone who feels strongly about something to that extent should be automatically stateless.