RotherhitheGill
Vital 1st Team Regular
Budha - think the irony will be missed.
Brilliant. Create a martyr. Just what these nutters would love, especially a young woman.I would use the Death Penalty for these type of offenders. There is no chance of her being deradacalised.
It's a shame the last gallows in plymouth were removed by Blair.
When she was carrying a weapon , and wasn't in a military uniform , she could have faced a firing squad if caught by opposing forces.
I would use the Death Penalty for these type of offenders. There is no chance of her being deradacalised.
It's a shame the last gallows in plymouth were removed by Blair.
Would you want her to be stoned to death if found guilty in court?
Deported to where? No country will want her if she is dangerous.No not really , that's a bit barbaric/Islamic/Middle Eastern for me.
Us English prefer the noose.
I don't think she should be harmed myself , just deported as a dangerous person.
The moonDeported to where? No country will want her if she is dangerous.
She made herself stateless by joining a terrorist organisation. Actions have consequences.Disgraceful decision. She is our problem to deal with. We have made her stateless which I thought was illegal.
Quite surprised the Supreme Court resorted to this. Haven't seen the reasoning yet.
Still, at least we won't have the DM outing the judges as enemies of the people. The vast majority of "the people" will love this decision.
One doesn't make onself stateless by joining a terrorist organisation. The same applies to the right wing extremists in this country who are in terrorist organisations. They are our problem.She made herself stateless by joining a terrorist organisation. Actions have consequences.
PS - I do not read the DM.
Bring her back to the UK, keeping her in custody (if only for her own protection).
I would say bring her back if she wants to come back, but only on the understanding that she will be set free, and her address will be publicised. No prison costs then.
Hopefully then someone who owns an axe will come and perform one of those acts that she claimed not to care about (and she was no longer a gullible 15 year old then). Perhaps a relative of one of those innocent aid workers?
Anyone fancy a kick about afterwards?
She made herself stateless by joining a terrorist organisation. Actions have consequences.
PS - I do not read the DM.
Thank you. I was disgusted. I went to post a reply but words failed me for once.A new low for this board.
Yes, correct. I think I heard that the Supreme Court said, amongst other things, that it is not for the CofA to decide what is a matter of national security but, at the time, Javid's as the relevant minister responsible. That is of course logical and I don't challenge the correctness of the court's interretation, of course. I do totally disagree with the Home Secretary's 'reasoning'.To add some context to the Ruling, this was basically a decision about whether or not the Court of Appeal was correct to put the Right to a Fair Trial ahead of Requirements of National Security.
The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the Court of Appeal, which had previously overturned a Home Office decision that Begum would not be allowed into the UK.
In doing so the Supreme Court effectively reaffirmed the principle that the right to a fair hearing did "not trump all other considerations, such as the safety of the public".
Whilst that decision will stick, and we are not likely to see Begum set foot in the UK, we may not have heard the last of the matter concerning Begum`s fight for citizenship.