Magnificent seven | Page 13 | Vital Football

Magnificent seven

moonay said:
KDZ, (& MiW), we're probably not going to agree.

As I've said numerous occasions, I do understand the position of those who (for whatever reason) don't want to see he back in the UK. However, neither do I want to see people condemned due to assumptions of crimes that they may or may not have committed .......... as opposed to being a member of a "banned" organisation.

If she returns, then she should be subject to the legal process. Simple. Nothing of what you've said - especially trying to tar her with the actions of the Manchester bomber, regardless of what she might have said - has persuaded me otherwise. You can't generally condemn people - rapists, paedophiles, murderers, terrorists - with a single label, or a collective behaviour. Each of their individual circumstances will have context.

Just a point re "Joining a terrorist organisation" ....................... who defines what a terrorist organisation might be. The point re IRA and UVF are is absolutely still relevant.

Let's just agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

This country's government defines what it is. Isis is a proscribed one. There is no assumption of a crime, the crime and guilt in this case would appear absolute. Condemning is a perfectly reasonable response and of course you can condemn rapists, murderers, paedophiles, terrorists. Context is irrelevant in the main for these type of offences.

Whilst I appreciate you are trying to provide an alternate view to the debate - as you always do and is what makes you an excellent poster on here - on this occasion you have the minority view. We are talking about welcoming a terrorist back into the country because they've been defeated. Legally we may have to, but that doesn't mean we have to do so with open arms and we should just forgive and forget. These people should be pursued vigorously to protect the citizens of this country and the government should do whatever they can to do that.
 
Anyway, away from potentially returning terrorists it's another day and another labour MP, another Corbyn ally, in trouble for antisemitism. The sad thing is it is no longer a surprise. Still refreshing to see that whilst Corbyn sits mute and does sweet fa about it as per usual the deputy leader is showing some leadership on the issue.
 
MiW ........ we aren't talking about welcoming back a terrorist.

We're talking about someone re-entering the country, whereupon they should be subject to the legal process for whatever crimes they may have committed. .......... and I then fully agree with the rest of your post.

See ..... not that far apart.

;)
 
moonay said:
MiW ........ we aren't talking about welcoming back a terrorist.

We're talking about someone re-entering the country, whereupon they should be subject to the legal process for whatever crimes they may have committed. .......... and I then fully agree with the rest of your post.

See ..... not that far apart.

;)
Click to expand...

As Hmon said...let's draw a line under it. We all know each other's views & we all know what each side of the debate would like to see happen so just move on from it cos us debating it isn't actually going to change what will happen. Get back to the elephant in the room......Br, Br, Br......bringing back football debate. I'll kick it off - complete turnaround in form this weekend & a convincing 2-0 win against Boro - Sadly I won't be able to go.
 
Hampton said:
If the caliphate remained in existence would she be looking to come back ?
When is our country going to stop allowing itself to be treated like a mug by all and sundry ? Terrorists, EU, Economic Migrants they are all taking the piss because we are sadly a soft touch.
Click to expand...

EU economic migrants! Don't expose your stupidity completely.
 
Made in Wigan said:
What has she done wrong? She joined a proscribed terrorist organisation for a start and at the very least provided support for it.

I think most level headed people don't want her or any other terrorist back in the country. The problem is with the law as it stands and so new legislation is required. As we know the weak willed hand wringers and left wing media such as the guardian will try and resist as per usual with Corbyn and Abbott doing their best to block it. They are best ignored. I'd also advocate bringing back the death penalty for such offences.
Click to expand...

I ask again please comment on Jacobs Rees Moggs stance on this matter, you quote corbyn and Abbott but not him -- hmmmm???
 
exiled tic said:
Sorry Kenny i usually agree with you but your first line exposes the weakness of your argument! You say they have a probationary period when they FIRST join!!
Hatton had been in the party before and been kicked out,so they knew who they were getting and the baggage he carried and still waved him through!
Click to expand...
It's not a weak argument, its the truth.
All applicants are provisionally allowed in then there is a three month period where any member can put forward objections which are the considered and acted on if necessary. This is what seems to have happened here
 
Made in Wigan said:
Nonsense. It was as conclusive as it needed to be. More people chose to leave than they did remain. It is that simple. As public servants these MPs should have been working to uphold this act of democracy not hinder it at every turn because they didn't like the result. If they weren't happy with that then given the subsequent election they shouldn't have run. We are now in this period of uncertainty due to their treacherous behaviour and the encouragement given to them by the sore losers.
Click to expand...
Its words like "treacherous" that have this country in the position it is in, a very emotive term which leads to extremism
They are not "treacherous", they are acting as they see best. Don't forget that many MPs constituencies voted to remain so they have to have an eye on that too.
There are many different views of what Brexit meant, the most simplistic and ridiculous was "just walk away now" after the referendum.
A guy from Barnsley interviewed the other day was screaming we should be out by now, I voted Brexit to stop all these muslims and Africans comming in as immigrants, I have no problem with Europeans coming in but we needed to stop these others. How thick and ridiculous does that sound!!?
 
Kenny Morris said:
It's not a weak argument, its the truth.
All applicants are provisionally allowed in then there is a three month period where any member can put forward objections which are the considered and acted on if necessary. This is what seems to have happened here
Click to expand...
Fair enough if he was a first time applicant,Alas he was not! As a previously banned individual his application should have ensured extra scrutiny,Surely that would make sense!!
 
loudmouthblue said:
I ask again please comment on Jacobs Rees Moggs stance on this matter, you quote corbyn and Abbott but not him -- hmmmm???
Click to expand...

He's made several comments on the matter that I don't agree with. Several weeks back on QT he stated we should have sympathy with her. I have none. He has recently stated we should bring her back to prosecute her. If she was to return then prosecute her certainly, but I wouldn't be bringing her back to do that as I would rather see her barred from the country. He's also stated we shouldn't be revoking citizenship. Again I disagree with him it, it shouldn't be an automatic right it should be something that is conditional - and leaving the country to join a terrorist organisation would fail those conditions.

He also said he's probably come down with snowflakeitis on this matter. That is something I do agree with.
 
Kenny Morris said:
Its words like "treacherous" that have this country in the position it is in, a very emotive term which leads to extremism
They are not "treacherous", they are acting as they see best. Don't forget that many MPs constituencies voted to remain so they have to have an eye on that too.
There are many different views of what Brexit meant, the most simplistic and ridiculous was "just walk away now" after the referendum.
A guy from Barnsley interviewed the other day was screaming we should be out by now, I voted Brexit to stop all these muslims and Africans comming in as immigrants, I have no problem with Europeans coming in but we needed to stop these others. How thick and ridiculous does that sound!!?
Click to expand...

I can't comment on the bloke from Barnsley as I haven't heard that, but yes he sounds like a complete tool.

For me it was simple. A referendum was held with two outcomes. As such it should be respected and enacted upon. Both main parties campaigned with manifesto pledges to do just that. To go against that and openly campaign against it is in my view treacherous as they are acting against the will of the government and people. Their views on the matter are irrelevant, as public servants they be doing as instructed. If they don't want to do that they should stand aside as they aren't conscripts. If they had done as the referendum result instructed instead of trying to hamstring the process we wouldn't be in the state of confusion and paralysis we are now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.