I think it's fair of McD to highlight it. I knew little about Churchill until recently (other than the nationalist billboard version). It's interesting and useful to discuss and debate another side to him. I really don't understand the problem here.
'[Churchill] also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes," he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their "squeamishness", declaring that "the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war." '
Just watched the ITV McD tape again. He's spot on. Let's debate historical figures. The world is not rendered in black and white. Fair play to him.
He's very good at appearing reasonable because he's a canny politician. His history and the frequent mask-slippage means this sort of statement rings very, very hollow.
At least Chris Williamson's too stupid to hide his nauseating and ill-informed views.
I think it's fair of McD to highlight it. I knew little about Churchill until recently (other than the nationalist billboard version). It's interesting and useful to discuss and debate another side to him. I really don't understand the problem here.
The right answer would have been to challenge the premise of the question that any and every politician can simplistically be categorised as hero or villain.
Just watched the ITV McD tape again. He's spot on. Let's debate historical figures. The world is not rendered in black and white. Fair play to him.
The format isn't particular helpful. The best McD could have done would be to say "both". It's the same irritation I have when politicians or interviewers demand a "yes or no answer".
Churchill was impetuous, erratic and had poor judgement. He was also charismatic and charming. But at the UK's time of crisis he was the right person for the job.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
I have a little bit of sympathy for letting her back, with the proviso that I'd expect her to be prosecuted for any crimes, or at least forced into some sort of programme, and have her child taken into care. I do not see her as a victim at all, and I suspect those that do would not take the same stance with a male of the same age.
Well, yes. Why should Syria be responsible for her? Lord knows they have enough to deal with. She is not a citizen of anywhere other than UK. She was created here. Why should we foist our problems onto other nations?
Because of her own free will she chose to join an organisation that the U.K. was opposed to and fighting.
You could of course set up a new party on the basis of a second referendum but it's hard to think of anything that would be more divisive. That's also one reason why it might work I suppose.
The problem is you need to be divisive, but in a geographically concentrated way.
Towns which have recently been told they will lose their Marks and Spencer store? All those on last week's list were in Leave areas
Leave regions not doing as well economically therefore voted for radical change
The correlation between economic deprivation and voting leave is weak. There's a much stronger correlation between economic deprivation and voting Labour, but I doubt you'd use that as a moral argument for hard-left government.
The only argument I’m using is that I suspect m&s closed stores that were not doing well.
These are likely to be disproportionately outside the large metropolitan areas
That’s all...
The M&S in Dartmouth, Devon alway looks non-viable on the face of it. Delivery is along narrow roads, a long way from their other stores.
But then they stock every brand of booze that M&S carries. Turns out it's the sailing community, stocking their gin palaces, that keeps it afloat.
Just watched the ITV McD tape again. He's spot on. Let's debate historical figures. The world is not rendered in black and white. Fair play to him.
The format isn't particular helpful. The best McD could have done would be to say "both". It's the same irritation I have when politicians or interviewers demand a "yes or no answer".
Churchill was impetuous, erratic and had poor judgement. He was also charismatic and charming. But at the UK's time of crisis he was the right person for the job.
Yes, disregard his achievement as a war leader and his record is chequered to put it kindly. Yet that one achievement obliterates all else.
He's by no means unique among leading politicians of questionable credentials in having one supreme success to his credit which outweighs all else. I can also think of others where the reverse applies - good leaders with one damning failure.
Just watched the ITV McD tape again. He's spot on. Let's debate historical figures. The world is not rendered in black and white. Fair play to him.
He's very good at appearing reasonable because he's a canny politician. His history and the frequent mask-slippage means this sort of statement rings very, very hollow.
At least Chris Williamson's too stupid to hide his nauseating and ill-informed views.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
To demonstrate we are better than ISIS and because her child is going to be an innocent British citizen that needs help.
I suspect you're a bit of a soft touch but we don't need to demonstrate we are better than ISIS (that much is blindingly obvious to any developed mind) and we don't need to let her back into the country either.
The child is only likely to be a British citizen if born in the UK I think. The rules are quite complex.
I don't think so.
"if your child was not born in the UK but either parent was a British citizen before the child was born (i.e. they were born in the UK or have registered or naturalised as a British citizen), your child was automatically born a British citizen by descent."
Mr. Z, hmm. Interesting. So, had we declared a formal war on the so-called Caliphate, siding with it against the UK would not, by itself, be sufficient to constitute treason in legal terms?
As an aside, it's curious that Camilla remains a modern, if unusual, name, whereas Camillus is one I've only read of in antiquity (top chap, incidentally).
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
And of course this misses the main point that this woman is still totally unrepentant for her actions. Not even some sort of (fake or otherwise) attempt at claiming it was all a massive mistake. In fact, sounds even more hardcore.
She's a British citizen brainwashed as a child into a death cult and used as a breeder for more Jihadis. Where the fuck is your compassion?* You think somebody immersed in that for years is 'deprogrammed' overnight?
* "your" plural, Francis, it's not aimed solely at you
It's you on this who is out of touch,where was her compassion when she saw victims heads in a bucket after beheadings and she didn't feel nothing.
Didn't she go there with 2 others to become jihadi brides,she used herself for the breeding programme and not used with the way you.put it.
Mr. Z, hmm. Interesting. So, had we declared a formal war on the so-called Caliphate, siding with it against the UK would not, by itself, be sufficient to constitute treason in legal terms?
As an aside, it's curious that Camilla remains a modern, if unusual, name, whereas Camillus is one I've only read of in antiquity (top chap, incidentally).
That’s be covered by the Treason Act 1351:
adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere
The article reads favourably towards Churchill, but the criticism does appear to a historical cleft between him and the Labour movement.
I remember studying it as part of my history O level.
I was reading that earlier. Interesting that the army were better behaved than the police. The big grievance was that the deployment of the army brought an end to the riots in favour of the mine owners.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
And of course this misses the main point that this woman is still totally unrepentant for her actions. Not even some sort of (fake or otherwise) attempt at claiming it was all a massive mistake. In fact, sounds even more hardcore.
She's a British citizen brainwashed as a child into a death cult and used as a breeder for more Jihadis. Where the fuck is your compassion?* You think somebody immersed in that for years is 'deprogrammed' overnight?
* "your" plural, Francis, it's not aimed solely at you
Don't tell @AlastairMeeks that she's also a leaver.. Oh, not the sort of death cult you meant?
Mr. D, I'd be a little surprised if that remained unaltered, given Edward III (probably in that) rejigged the law in the light of Sir Roger Mortimer's naughtiness, and Richard II rewrote the law to essentially make it treason to disagree with him.
What do you have to do to be commit treason? Genuine question.
Be a naughty boy with any of the King's ladies. (Not sure If this still.applies with a Queen). Attempt to murder the regent. Make war against the regent. Attempt to disrupt the line of succession.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
And of course this misses the main point that this woman is still totally unrepentant for her actions. Not even some sort of (fake or otherwise) attempt at claiming it was all a massive mistake. In fact, sounds even more hardcore.
She's a British citizen brainwashed as a child into a death cult and used as a breeder for more Jihadis. Where the fuck is your compassion?* You think somebody immersed in that for years is 'deprogrammed' overnight?
* "your" plural, Francis, it's not aimed solely at you
Don't tell @AlastairMeeks that she's also a leaver.. Oh, not the sort of death cult you meant?
I heard the interview and was struck by her immaturity. She's also a racist, which is not surprising since she's been living in a racist cult for some time. She also seems to lack compassion for anybody but herself, but I guess that kind of follows.
Mr. D, I'd be a little surprised if that remained unaltered, given Edward III (probably in that) rejigged the law in the light of Sir Roger Mortimer's naughtiness, and Richard II rewrote the law to essentially make it treason to disagree with him.
Mr. D, I'd be a little surprised if that remained unaltered, given Edward III (probably in that) rejigged the law in the light of Sir Roger Mortimer's naughtiness, and Richard II rewrote the law to essentially make it treason to disagree with him.
Also "compassing" the death of the King or Queen, which covered conspiracy and casting horoscopes to find out how long they had to live.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
Who is advocating her case to come back ? I haven't seen much sympathy about - is it someone in parliament ?
And of course this misses the main point that this woman is still totally unrepentant for her actions. Not even some sort of (fake or otherwise) attempt at claiming it was all a massive mistake. In fact, sounds even more hardcore.
She's a British citizen brainwashed as a child into a death cult and used as a breeder for more Jihadis. Where the fuck is your compassion?* You think somebody immersed in that for years is 'deprogrammed' overnight?
* "your" plural, Francis, it's not aimed solely at you
Don't tell @AlastairMeeks that she's also a leaver.. Oh, not the sort of death cult you meant?
I heard the interview and was struck by her immaturity. She's also a racist, which is not surprising since she's been living in a racist cult for some time. She also seems to lack compassion for anybody but herself, but I guess that kind of follows.
Doesn't listening to the interview tell you that she has No regrets ? That's what i took from it.
I heard the interview and was struck by her immaturity. She's also a racist, which is not surprising since she's been living in a racist cult for some time. She also seems to lack compassion for anybody but herself, but I guess that kind of follows.
I'm not finding her a particularly sympathetic character, either.
However.. if it's the case she was groomed and brainwashed when she was 14, it seems to me the law is likely to (or maybe should) cut her some slack.
The response to her case feels markedly different to those of numerous 14 year old *white* girls groomed and trafficked by gangs in this country. Maybe drugs and 'prostitution' (rape) are of lesser concern in the outrage chart than terrorist beheadings. I sort of get that.
But the dynamic is similar - persuasive men with a superficially-attractive ideology/free iphone, preying on vulnerable girls to join their cult and sleep with them/ferry drugs/make some money being raped by other men.
The amount of guff about this girl who joined IS is a bit much. Poor little victim and all the rest of it.
She made a choice. She was sought out by the journalist. She did not seek help from the authorities. She is unrepentant. She is a potential threat. Someone who says they are "not fazed" by seeing a bin full of beheaded heads is not someone who is seeking to return because she has been revolted by the organisation she joined. Actions have consequences. And those who take such actions need to live with the consequences of their actions
And we do not know - and are unlikely to be told the truth by her - of what she did and what she facilitated while out there. So if she has committed crimes it will be very difficult to prosecute her here. Women can be killers too and can help killers.
I see no good reason why we should facilitate her return in any way.
I have a little bit of sympathy for letting her back, with the proviso that I'd expect her to be prosecuted for any crimes, or at least forced into some sort of programme, and have her child taken into care. I do not see her as a victim at all, and I suspect those that do would not take the same stance with a male of the same age.
Well, yes. Why should Syria be responsible for her? Lord knows they have enough to deal with. She is not a citizen of anywhere other than UK. She was created here. Why should we foist our problems onto other nations?
Because of her own free will she chose to join an organisation that the U.K. was opposed to and fighting.
Choices have consequences.
I get that. And I do sympathise with your position. But, she is not a Syrian citizen. Therefore not their responsibility. If the roles were reversed, and a Syrian ISIS supporter came here you would want them sent home I presume?
Mr. Tweed, many of those girls (and boys, hundreds of the Rotherham victims were male), and their families asked for help and were ignored or fobbed off.
This woman, and her friends, went thousands of miles out of their way to join a cult that crucified children, burnt prisoners alive, and sought to exterminate the Yazidis. Would you sympathise with someone who joined the Nazis in 1944 and travelled a thousand miles from home to do it?
Historically proving treason, especially once we passed from the period when the courts would habitually say “how high?” when the monarch said “jump!”, was quite difficult. Treason was a specific class of crime alongside felonies and misdemeanours and had quite difficult to achieve tests for successful prosecution (IIRC there were things like needing multiple witnesses to the treason among other things). This is why Parliament eventually enacted other offences such as treason felony and treachery, which being felonies were easier to prosecute.
Incidentally, treason against the Crown is “high treason” but there was also “petty treason” against someone you owed a lesser allegiance to. Women who killed their husbands were convicted of petty treason and as a result were burnt at the stake (the penalty for treason by a woman) rather than hanged.
Just watched the ITV McD tape again. He's spot on. Let's debate historical figures. The world is not rendered in black and white. Fair play to him.
He's very good at appearing reasonable because he's a canny politician. His history and the frequent mask-slippage means this sort of statement rings very, very hollow.
At least Chris Williamson's too stupid to hide his nauseating and ill-informed views.
I think satire can sometimes be spot on, and in recent years the best political satirists in the UK have been writing for Dead Ringers, and I suspect you would like their portrayal of McDonnell if you haven't heard it already.
I heard the interview and was struck by her immaturity. She's also a racist, which is not surprising since she's been living in a racist cult for some time. She also seems to lack compassion for anybody but herself, but I guess that kind of follows.
I'm not finding her a particularly sympathetic character, either.
However.. if it's the case she was groomed and brainwashed when she was 14, it seems to me the law is likely to (or maybe should) cut her some slack.
The response to her case feels markedly different to those of numerous 14 year old *white* girls groomed and trafficked by Muslim gangs in this country. Maybe drugs and 'prostitution' (rape) are of lesser concern in the outrage chart than terrorist beheadings. I get that.
But the dynamic is similar - persuasive men with a superficially-attractive ideology/free iphone, preying on vulnerable girls to join their cult and sleep with them/ferry drugs/make some money being raped by other men.
I keep hearing ' groomed or brainwashed ' maybe she wasn't any of them and she really liked the idea of a Islamic state ?
Mr. D, I'd be a little surprised if that remained unaltered, given Edward III (probably in that) rejigged the law in the light of Sir Roger Mortimer's naughtiness, and Richard II rewrote the law to essentially make it treason to disagree with him.
Also "compassing" the death of the King or Queen, which covered conspiracy and casting horoscopes to find out how long they had to live.
I hope that wouldn't cover Republicans casting an eye over actuarial tables with a wistful sigh?
Mr. Tweed, many of those girls (and boys, hundreds of the Rotherham victims were male), and their families asked for help and were ignored or fobbed off.
This woman, and her friends, went thousands of miles out of their way to join a cult that crucified children, burnt prisoners alive, and sought to exterminate the Yazidis. Would you sympathise with someone who joined the Nazis in 1944 and travelled a thousand miles from home to do it?
I'm suggesting that in both cases, that's not how it's "sold" to the victims, and the law doesn't always expect a 14 year old to do their own research.
I should imagine the grooming is all about joining a loving Muslim family, and helping our campaign to re-assert God's values over the heathens. I'm only guessing here, but I'd wager "helping us put the bins out when we've butchered a few people" wasn't in the sales pitch.
In the same way, the Rochdale gangs bigged-up the late-night drinking and free iPhones.. not so much being raped by 15 blokes on a staircase or being used as a blackmailed drugs mule.
I concede I don't really know how open these (IS) girls' eyes were as to what they were getting in to - but in the domestic trafficking cases, the law is clear.. if you're under-age it's the adult's fault.
I heard the interview and was struck by her immaturity. She's also a racist, which is not surprising since she's been living in a racist cult for some time. She also seems to lack compassion for anybody but herself, but I guess that kind of follows.
I'm not finding her a particularly sympathetic character, either.
However.. if it's the case she was groomed and brainwashed when she was 14, it seems to me the law is likely to (or maybe should) cut her some slack.
The response to her case feels markedly different to those of numerous 14 year old *white* girls groomed and trafficked by Muslim gangs in this country. Maybe drugs and 'prostitution' (rape) are of lesser concern in the outrage chart than terrorist beheadings. I get that.
But the dynamic is similar - persuasive men with a superficially-attractive ideology/free iphone, preying on vulnerable girls to join their cult and sleep with them/ferry drugs/make some money being raped by other men.
I keep hearing ' groomed or brainwashed ' maybe she wasn't any of them and she really liked the idea of a Islamic state ?
And if that's the case, I agree the comparison I make is harder. I'm only going on what I keep hearing too.
I heard the interview and was struck by her immaturity. She's also a racist, which is not surprising since she's been living in a racist cult for some time. She also seems to lack compassion for anybody but herself, but I guess that kind of follows.
I'm not finding her a particularly sympathetic character, either.
However.. if it's the case she was groomed and brainwashed when she was 14, it seems to me the law is likely to (or maybe should) cut her some slack.
The response to her case feels markedly different to those of numerous 14 year old *white* girls groomed and trafficked by gangs in this country. Maybe drugs and 'prostitution' (rape) are of lesser concern in the outrage chart than terrorist beheadings. I sort of get that.
But the dynamic is similar - persuasive men with a superficially-attractive ideology/free iphone, preying on vulnerable girls to join their cult and sleep with them/ferry drugs/make some money being raped by other men.
Joining a murderous death cult is more like other forms of murder than drug/prostitution victims.
I imagine the response to her case is little different to the response to the 10 year olds who murdered Bulger.
Comments
This makes Ken look like a political strategist.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/sep/01/winston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
Sounds like a nice chap.
At least Chris Williamson's too stupid to hide his nauseating and ill-informed views.
Churchill was impetuous, erratic and had poor judgement. He was also charismatic and charming. But at the UK's time of crisis he was the right person for the job.
What do you have to do to be commit treason? Genuine question.
But then they stock every brand of booze that M&S carries. Turns out it's the sailing community, stocking their gin palaces, that keeps it afloat.
He's by no means unique among leading politicians of questionable credentials in having one supreme success to his credit which outweighs all else. I can also think of others where the reverse applies - good leaders with one damning failure.
Today he said "let's look at both sides of the issue".
Yet again McD says what he thinks one day and then when he should have said the next.
https://www.gov.uk/check-british-citizen
What you have to be is someone who owes allegiance to hmq, and that's a grey area. Having a UK passport is sufficient but not necessary.
Mr. Z, hmm. Interesting. So, had we declared a formal war on the so-called Caliphate, siding with it against the UK would not, by itself, be sufficient to constitute treason in legal terms?
As an aside, it's curious that Camilla remains a modern, if unusual, name, whereas Camillus is one I've only read of in antiquity (top chap, incidentally).
Didn't she go there with 2 others to become jihadi brides,she used herself for the breeding programme and not used with the way you.put it.
adhering to the sovereign's enemies, giving them aid and comfort, in the realm or elsewhere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_riots
The article reads favourably towards Churchill, but the criticism does appear to a historical cleft between him and the Labour movement.
I remember studying it as part of my history O level.
Bad sign when the even billy bunters don't know what is going on.
Attempt to murder the regent.
Make war against the regent.
Attempt to disrupt the line of succession.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3Stat5/25/2/section/II
Mr. Tyndall, pretty tight list there.
Mr. F, interesting.
However.. if it's the case she was groomed and brainwashed when she was 14, it seems to me the law is likely to (or maybe should) cut her some slack.
The response to her case feels markedly different to those of numerous 14 year old *white* girls groomed and trafficked by gangs in this country. Maybe drugs and 'prostitution' (rape) are of lesser concern in the outrage chart than terrorist beheadings. I sort of get that.
But the dynamic is similar - persuasive men with a superficially-attractive ideology/free iphone, preying on vulnerable girls to join their cult and sleep with them/ferry drugs/make some money being raped by other men.
If the roles were reversed, and a Syrian ISIS supporter came here you would want them sent home I presume?
This woman, and her friends, went thousands of miles out of their way to join a cult that crucified children, burnt prisoners alive, and sought to exterminate the Yazidis. Would you sympathise with someone who joined the Nazis in 1944 and travelled a thousand miles from home to do it?
Incidentally, treason against the Crown is “high treason” but there was also “petty treason” against someone you owed a lesser allegiance to. Women who killed their husbands were convicted of petty treason and as a result were burnt at the stake (the penalty for treason by a woman) rather than hanged.
I should imagine the grooming is all about joining a loving Muslim family, and helping our campaign to re-assert God's values over the heathens. I'm only guessing here, but I'd wager "helping us put the bins out when we've butchered a few people" wasn't in the sales pitch.
In the same way, the Rochdale gangs bigged-up the late-night drinking and free iPhones.. not so much being raped by 15 blokes on a staircase or being used as a blackmailed drugs mule.
I concede I don't really know how open these (IS) girls' eyes were as to what they were getting in to - but in the domestic trafficking cases, the law is clear.. if you're under-age it's the adult's fault.
I imagine the response to her case is little different to the response to the 10 year olds who murdered Bulger.