Presumably you'd agree as it gives her a better chance to appeal as is her right?
No.
In my opinion she lost her 'rights' when she went off to join the most murderous organisation of the 21st century and at 15 she knew exactly what she was doing (having access to the internet and studying the atrocities they had committed for a start) although her apologists will no doubt say differently.
I think you have to put your opinion to one side, and acknowledge the fact that she does have the right to appeal. I suppose the problem with her coming back for the appeal is it gives her a foot in the door. If she loses the appeal it could be difficult or impossible to make her leave the UK again.
Because of this every Tom, Abdul and Jihadi have the right to return to this country! They will be put in jail and released early and then they will disappear into the ether to carry on their Jihad but back here. Best get used to the sight of heads in bins and body parts blasted across the streets.
For goodness’ sake - why are you so utterly negative in everything you post? Fuck off - Britain and it’s judiciary respect human rights which is a darn sight more than can be said for many countries. If we don’t give people a fair trial then what have we become?
Fair trial? Why don’t you tell that to the Yazidi people who her ISIS friends and husbands slaughtered or to the Yazidi women they kept as sex slaves you know, the ones she herself prepared for the rapes and murders. Those heads in bins had a really fair trial didn’t they?
Human rights, yeah you mentioned them, don’t make me fucking laugh. Now crawl back under your stone sweetheart.
__________________
“Half of the people lie with their lips; the other half with their tears” ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb
At 15 you don't really know your own mind, and I'm sure we've all done daft things at that age, so that's the only thing about her that's an excuse. However, I think her life could well be made a misery in this country if she's allowed to go back into society.
You think running away to support terrorists in a war is just the daft actions of a 15 year old?
I think at that age you make stupid, idiotic and life threatening decisions. Plenty of teenagers have killed themselves and others because their frontal lobe is undeveloped. I think she's an arse and I'd like to slap her into next week for being part of that vile regime, but that's not the subject of the OP.
What's more the issue here is that if they let her in, then every other wannabee Jihadi will want back. I think she should be tried for war crimes in Syria. She went out there to support murder. But the reality is this country gives air space to lawyers who make a fucking killing from this kind of thing. That's the real problem here in the UK.
Notice brave guesty didn’t tell you you were so negative and told you to fuck off as well.
__________________
“Half of the people lie with their lips; the other half with their tears” ― Nassim Nicholas Taleb
If a survey were to be held, I would bet that the vast majority of people living in the UK would not want her back.
Yes she was young, but she knew right from wrong.
Five years on she has never shown any remorse for her actions and even her own father agreed with the government decision to keep her out of the UK.
If a survey were to be held, I would bet that the vast majority of people living in the UK would not want her back. Yes she was young, but she knew right from wrong. Five years on she has never shown any remorse for her actions and even her own father agreed with the government decision to keep her out of the UK.
This isn't about justice. It's about lawyers making money. If true justice were to take place, she'd be tried in Syria.
If a survey were to be held, I would bet that the vast majority of people living in the UK would not want her back. Yes she was young, but she knew right from wrong. Five years on she has never shown any remorse for her actions and even her own father agreed with the government decision to keep her out of the UK.
This isn't about justice. It's about lawyers making money. If true justice were to take place, she'd be tried in Syria.
Yes...but no one would be making millions and being covered in misplaced glory then would they.
Better to have a bleeding heart than no heart at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My heart goes out to all the victims of terrorism, like the 22 killed and the 116 injured, plus the countless lives ruined by the Manchester bomber, plus all the other innocent victims of the murderous bastards this woman supports.
Better to have a bleeding heart than no heart at all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My heart goes out to all the victims of terrorism, like the 22 killed and the 116 injured, plus the countless lives ruined by the Manchester bomber, plus all the other innocent victims of the murderous bastards this woman supports.
Now troll off.
JO should just debate this subject properly he clearly feels passionate about the subject at hand.
That would be a better idea rather than making sweeping statements about the people and comments posted in this thread.
Of course Boris gets many people slating him. But it can't be denied the fella knows how to get a win. Even if it may take a while at times. London mayor twice. Brexit finally passed and done. 80 seat majority.
Here's what he said about Shamima.
Giving his own view on the matter today, the Prime Minister questioned the right of someone who had been denied UK citizenship because of a national security threat being allowed to receive legal aid funded by the UK tax-payer.
Mr Johnson said: "It seems to me to be at least odd and perverse that somebody can be entitled to legal aid when they are not only outside the country but have had their citizenship deprived for the protection of national security.
"That, amongst other things, we will be looking at."
Those other things will include the system of judicial review itself.
What we are looking at is whether there are some ways in which judicial review does indeed go too far or does indeed have perverse consequences that were not perhaps envisaged when the tradition of judicial review began."
-- Edited by JP on Monday 20th of July 2020 12:36:50 AM
-- Edited by JP on Monday 20th of July 2020 12:39:50 AM
Is the main objection here that she doesn't deserve any special privileges? Or does it go beyond that - that once here she might stay on and endanger life by resuming terrorist activities? If it's the latter it raises a wider issue - terrorism aside, should any offender who has harmed someone ever be released from jail, on the premise 'once an offender, always an offender'?
Is the main objection here that she doesn't deserve any special privileges? Or does it go beyond that - that once here she might stay on and endanger life by resuming terrorist activities? If it's the latter it raises a wider issue - terrorism aside, should any offender who has harmed someone ever be released from jail, on the premise 'once an offender, always an offender'?
Harmed someone how? If someone stole my car that would "harm" me. All crimes harm the victim in one way or another.
However I don't think anyone would expect your petty thief to be put in jail forever.
Someone might steel my car versus someone might become involved in terrorist activities. There is no real comparison to be made.
The Probability of risk. And Risk impact. When those factors are calculated and considered neither will look good for people like Shamima.