Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
Party discipline has broken down in this country over Europe long before Twitter came about.
Twitter is responsible for people hardening their opinions and refusing to compromise.
I am genuinely curious what that could mean. Other than openly admitting the party no longer exists in any practical sense in parliament, I'm not sure what could qualify. Even with the losers who despise Corbyn but still back him as PM I'd say no one comes close to the level of loathing some Tories have for one another.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
If she actually wants a deal as opposed to no deal she needs to give in and have a Corbyn Brexit. She isn't getting anything else. Yes, that's humiliating and it splits her party, but either you think no deal is bad or you don't. Admittedly she had previously said it would be ok, so I guess she was being honest about no deal being better than a bad deal after all, but is being dishonesty about her intentions now.
#CorbynsCustomsUnion
🦄
EU happy
MPs happy
ERG furious.
Uber Peoples Voters furious
Whats not to like
Why? What's happened?
Seriously. I've given up following Brexit, it's just so boring.
Luckily the UK has a charismatic leader that inspires the people , to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
I'm surprised given 172 voted No Confidence in Corbyn and how Labour is supposed dominated by Remain MPs how few are prepared to rebel on this.
I'm not. Remainer MPs have shrivelled testicles that shrivel further when asked to make a decision. They hide under stones and only come out after sunset. During the day they dessicate and take shelter from the merciless Sun, huddling in friendly Radio 4 studios where they can "call for" things without actually achieving them.
In contrast, Leaver MPs have large testicles and are permanently priapic. Unfortunately this restricts the blood supply to their brains, particularly those lobes responsible for memory and reason. Their vocal cords are unaffected and their constant incessant screaming can be heard over great distances.
NI would be a bit of a hospital pass for the Republic. Should the NI vote for it, the Republic would find it difficult to say no, but the financial and other costs would be huge
This 'Border Poll' which gets referred to, I have always assumed it means a vote of all adults across the island of Ireland, north and south, and then re-unification only follows if there is a majority in total AND a majority in NI. Have I got that wrong? Is it just a vote in the north?
I haven't checked but I thought it was North only.
I don't recall the basis for Northern Ireland only including 6 of Ulster's 9 counties, but the interesting dynamic would be if some counties (or parts of counties) voted for reunification while others didn't whether you could see a further partition. [That's usually what's meant by a "border poll" as a specific term, although don't know if there's a different meaning in a NI context]
A border poll in the GFA is a vote called by the Secretary of State in Northern Ireland, but the GFA also stipulates that unification requires support both north and south. It's not prescriptive about the order in which the votes happen.
Northern Ireland only included 6 counties because otherwise the unionist majority wouldn't have been stable.
Grieve and Soubry were fairly uncompromising in their speeches - indeed it seems that in their minds they no longer see themselves as part of the governing party.
Well they have no intention of following through on the commitments made in their manifesto.
I'm surprised given 172 voted No Confidence in Corbyn and how Labour is supposed dominated by Remain MPs how few are prepared to rebel on this.
I'm not. Remainer MPs have shrivelled testicles that shrivel further when asked to make a decision. They hide under stones and only come out after sunset. During the day they dessicate and take shelter from the merciless Sun, huddling in friendly Radio 4 studios where they can "call for" things without actually achieving them.
In contrast, Leaver MPs have large testicles and are permanently priapic. Unfortunately this restricts the blood supply to their brains, particularly those lobes responsible for memory and reason. Their vocal cords are unaffected and their constant incessant screaming can be heard over great distances.
If she actually wants a deal as opposed to no deal she needs to give in and have a Corbyn Brexit. She isn't getting anything else. Yes, that's humiliating and it splits her party, but either you think no deal is bad or you don't. Admittedly she had previously said it would be ok, so I guess she was being honest about no deal being better than a bad deal after all, but is being dishonesty about her intentions now.
#CorbynsCustomsUnion
🦄
EU happy
MPs happy
ERG furious.
Uber Peoples Voters furious
Whats not to like
Why? What's happened?
Seriously. I've given up following Brexit, it's just so boring.
Luckily the UK has a charismatic leader that inspires the people , to follow through on their 2016 vote.
Jezza?
Yeah a true believer in leaving the EU, not a May come lately.
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
Extension is not a solution. Referendum is not a solution. Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
I am genuinely curious what that could mean. Other than openly admitting the party no longer exists in any practical sense in parliament, I'm not sure what could qualify. Even with the losers who despise Corbyn but still back him as PM I'd say no one comes close to the level of loathing some Tories have for one another.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
TM to resign and say I did my best. Over to you !!!!!
I'm surprised given 172 voted No Confidence in Corbyn and how Labour is supposed dominated by Remain MPs how few are prepared to rebel on this.
I'm not. Remainer MPs have shrivelled testicles that shrivel further when asked to make a decision. They hide under stones and only come out after sunset. During the day they dessicate and take shelter from the merciless Sun, huddling in friendly Radio 4 studios where they can "call for" things without actually achieving them.
In contrast, Leaver MPs have large testicles and are permanently priapic. Unfortunately this restricts the blood supply to their brains, particularly those lobes responsible for memory and reason. Their vocal cords are unaffected and their constant incessant screaming can be heard over great distances.
I'm surprised given 172 voted No Confidence in Corbyn and how Labour is supposed dominated by Remain MPs how few are prepared to rebel on this.
I'm not. Remainer MPs have shrivelled testicles that shrivel further when asked to make a decision. They hide under stones and only come out after sunset. During the day they dessicate and take shelter from the merciless Sun, huddling in friendly Radio 4 studios where they can "call for" things without actually achieving them.
In contrast, Leaver MPs have large testicles and are permanently priapic. Unfortunately this restricts the blood supply to their brains, particularly those lobes responsible for memory and reason. Their vocal cords are unaffected and their constant incessant screaming can be heard over great distances.
Grieve and Soubry were fairly uncompromising in their speeches - indeed it seems that in their minds they no longer see themselves as part of the governing party.
Well they have no intention of following through on the commitments made in their manifesto.
If you actually read the manifesto, rather than simply seeking to make cheap points, you'll see that it gives pretty much every Tory some problem or other.
I am genuinely curious what that could mean. Other than openly admitting the party no longer exists in any practical sense in parliament, I'm not sure what could qualify. Even with the losers who despise Corbyn but still back him as PM I'd say no one comes close to the level of loathing some Tories have for one another.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
Depends what the emphasis is. “Tories” (ie Labour is worse) or “now” in which case hold onto your hats, Cons-wise.
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
Extension is not a solution. Referendum is not a solution. Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
I am genuinely curious what that could mean. Other than openly admitting the party no longer exists in any practical sense in parliament, I'm not sure what could qualify. Even with the losers who despise Corbyn but still back him as PM I'd say no one comes close to the level of loathing some Tories have for one another.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
TM to resign and say I did my best. Over to you !!!!!
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
Extension is not a solution. Referendum is not a solution. Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
No - I am saying any of the above are possible
The only end points of the above are deal or revoke.
I am genuinely curious what that could mean. Other than openly admitting the party no longer exists in any practical sense in parliament, I'm not sure what could qualify. Even with the losers who despise Corbyn but still back him as PM I'd say no one comes close to the level of loathing some Tories have for one another.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
TM to resign and say I did my best. Over to you !!!!!
I'm surprised given 172 voted No Confidence in Corbyn and how Labour is supposed dominated by Remain MPs how few are prepared to rebel on this.
I'm not. Remainer MPs have shrivelled testicles that shrivel further when asked to make a decision. They hide under stones and only come out after sunset. During the day they dessicate and take shelter from the merciless Sun, huddling in friendly Radio 4 studios where they can "call for" things without actually achieving them.
In contrast, Leaver MPs have large testicles and are permanently priapic. Unfortunately this restricts the blood supply to their brains, particularly those lobes responsible for memory and reason. Their vocal cords are unaffected and their constant incessant screaming can be heard over great distances.
The ERG are open about being OK with No Deal. Them voting as they are makes sense. It is voting for what they say they believe in over partisan loyalties.
Corbyn supposedly is against No Deal (Haha!) as are supposed the rest of their MPs. Yet they are voting against a deal and risking no deal happening despite supposedly being against no deal. All for partisan reasons alone.
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
Extension is not a solution. Referendum is not a solution. Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
No - I am saying any of the above are possible
The only end points of the above are deal or revoke.
Which other end points do you have?
End points are varied and impossible to forecast and may be some considerable time away from becoming clear. However, on the 27th Feb the HOC will take no deal off the table and neutralise ERG
I am genuinely curious what that could mean. Other than openly admitting the party no longer exists in any practical sense in parliament, I'm not sure what could qualify. Even with the losers who despise Corbyn but still back him as PM I'd say no one comes close to the level of loathing some Tories have for one another.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
TM to resign and say I did my best. Over to you !!!!!
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
Extension is not a solution. Referendum is not a solution. Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
No - I am saying any of the above are possible
The only end points of the above are deal or revoke.
Which other end points do you have?
End points are varied and impossible to forecast and may be some considerable time away from becoming clear. However, on the 27th Feb the HOC will take no deal off the table and neutralise ERG
The why not do that long before now?! If it is so easy to neutralise them. There's a reason things have been pushed back endlessly, and more ways to push back even more are still the favourite option.
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
Extension is not a solution. Referendum is not a solution. Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
No - I am saying any of the above are possible
The only end points of the above are deal or revoke.
Which other end points do you have?
End points are varied and impossible to forecast and may be some considerable time away from becoming clear. However, on the 27th Feb the HOC will take no deal off the table and neutralise ERG
Only possible if they make revoke the alternative.
Lots of interesting detail in the votes and reports:
- Corbyn's amendment failed quite narrowly this time, 10 votes up on two weeks ago. The fact that he favours a deal that is potentially achievable is starting to sink in - A centrist group of MPs separate from any of the parties looks imminent, perhpas including iministers (perhaps that's the 8 o'clock news) - A significant number of Labour MPs are keen to block Brexit regardless of the party line - A significant number of Tory MPs are prepared to block any deal in the hope of a No Deal outcome
Curious that May didn't turn up. I wonder what she was doing?
Mr. kle4, it seems Parliament has wrested from Theresa May the right to not make a decision.
I doubt she is looking at anything other than a cosmetic change to the backstop and put it up for a meaningful vote and then follow the direction of the HOC, secretly hoping that ERG are marginalised as no deal is firmly taken off the agenda
No deal can't be taken off the table without saying we will remain if the deal is rejected.
Are you agreeing with that or did your post not come through?
Not sure about what happened but no I do not agree. Deal - referendum - revoke or extension are all on the table
Extension is not a solution. Referendum is not a solution. Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
No - I am saying any of the above are possible
The only end points of the above are deal or revoke.
Which other end points do you have?
End points are varied and impossible to forecast and may be some considerable time away from becoming clear. However, on the 27th Feb the HOC will take no deal off the table and neutralise ERG
The why not do that long before now?! If it is so easy to neutralise them. There's a reason things have been pushed back endlessly, and more ways to push back even more are still the favourite option.
Exactly. And an extension still leaves no deal as the status quo. It just changes the date no deal happens.
The only alternatives to no deal are a deal or revoke. TINA.
Lots of interesting detail in the votes and reports:
- Corbyn's amendment failed quite narrowly this time, 10 votes up on two weeks ago. The fact that he favours a deal that is potentially achievable is starting to sink in - A centrist group of MPs separate from any of the parties looks imminent, perhpas including iministers (perhaps that's the 8 o'clock news) - A significant number of Labour MPs are keen to block Brexit regardless of the party line - A significant number of Tory MPs are prepared to block any deal in the hope of a No Deal outcome
Curious that May didn't turn up. I wonder what she was doing?
Six things we've learnt from May's latest Brexit defeat
1) May will find it much harder now to argue that she has got a Commons majority behind her Brexit strategy.
2) The debate showed that MPs were only able to unite behind Brady because they could not agree what it meant.
3) EU leaders, who were already extremely reluctant to offer much to the UK in terms of backstop concessions because they could not be sure what might get through parliament, will now almost certainly feel even less inclined to engage.
4) New government evidence about how damaging a no-deal Brexit might be will have to be published soon.
5) May’s defeat raises questions about the competence of the government’s management of parliamentary business.
6) Today’s votes suggest that the debate due on Wednesday 27 February (see 9.19am) may end up being a decisive moment for Brexit.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
I am genuinely curious what that could mean. Other than openly admitting the party no longer exists in any practical sense in parliament, I'm not sure what could qualify. Even with the losers who despise Corbyn but still back him as PM I'd say no one comes close to the level of loathing some Tories have for one another.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
These things are usually overhyped.
Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve are probably putting out a joint statement saying the ERG are imbeciles, and JRM plus Mark Francois are absolute dickheads, or something.
Six things we've learnt from May's latest Brexit defeat
1) May will find it much harder now to argue that she has got a Commons majority behind her Brexit strategy.
2) The debate showed that MPs were only able to unite behind Brady because they could not agree what it meant.
3) EU leaders, who were already extremely reluctant to offer much to the UK in terms of backstop concessions because they could not be sure what might get through parliament, will now almost certainly feel even less inclined to engage.
4) New government evidence about how damaging a no-deal Brexit might be will have to be published soon.
5) May’s defeat raises questions about the competence of the government’s management of parliamentary business.
6) Today’s votes suggest that the debate due on Wednesday 27 February (see 9.19am) may end up being a decisive moment for Brexit.
5) is a classic. 'raises questions' about competence indeed.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
Woodward was innocent and facing a miscarriage of justice. She denied the allegations.
This woman by her own words is OK with murdering people and joined a murderous cult. The view to her is no different than that to sick white murderers like Venables and Thompson who murdered Jamie Bulger.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
One thing on the Woodward case,she wasn't joining the enemy and and a threat to this country.
If this was a white female, my views would be the same now,stop bringing race into it.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
Four years later she expresses absolutely no remorse for this, she still thinks it is OK to behead non-believers, she wishes the Caliphate had prospered, she makes no apology at all to the tens of thousands of ISIS victims, mouldering in their mass graves.
This really is the difficult part in all this. Her child is indeed blameless, but her returning is surely dangerous.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
On topic, Labour could win an absolute majority in England but they wouldn’t be landslide ones and they’d probably need to become slightly more Christian Democrat and socially conservative.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
It encourages lowest common denominator posturing moronism and it makes it easier to be against everything rather than for something.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
I agree.
That, combined with the eclipse of the West. We are experiencing a political, economic and social malaise.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
Four years later she expresses absolutely no remorse for this, she still thinks it is OK to behead non-believers, she wishes the Caliphate had prospered, she makes no apology at all to the tens of thousands of ISIS victims, mouldering in their mass graves.
This really is the difficult part in all this. Her child is indeed blameless, but her returning is surely dangerous.
Here is another woman who claimed to be an innocent:
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
It encourages lowest common denominator posturing moronism and it makes it easier to be against everything rather than for something.
Pretty sure the same things were said about radio, then TV, when they came out.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
FFS she joined a Nazi death cult. And went to great lengths to do so, showing cunning and intelligence. She secretly crossed frontiers, just so she could support a terror group which was burning people alive and slaving 1000s of women and committing genocidal atrocities and gleefully putting this all online. She joined AFTER we saw all of that
Four years later she expresses absolutely no remorse for this, she still thinks it is OK to behead non-believers, she wishes the Caliphate had prospered, she makes no apology at all to the tens of thousands of ISIS victims, mouldering in their mass graves. She's an unrepentant Nazi. What's more, she's an entitled little Nazi who thinks the British tax payer should fund her rescue, so she can come home and use our free health service.
Comparing her to some vulnerable girl from a care home, in Rochdale, groomed by Asian sex gangs, is grotesque nonsense, and borderline offensive.
She was a kid. She is still barely an adult. She has the same rights as you and I, regardless of her views, which I find just as repellent as you do. She is entitled to use our health service, like all British citizens. If she is guilty of any crimes she should be prosecuted for them according to the rule of law.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
BiB - Actually, my instinct is to assume the worst of Brits who find themselves banged up abroad.
She expressly says it is OK to behead non-believers in her interview. That's surely a crime in itself: incitement to violence, and so on. Moreover, it doesn't really matter what we think or what British law says. Morally and ethically we must yield to the people of Syria and Iraq - the slaved and raped Yazidi women with slaughtered fathers and husbands - they are the victims of ISIS, they should decide what happens to her.
My guess is "send her back to Britain so she can have free health care" would not be their immediate reaction, if asked.
Perhaps I am being too bleeding heart liberal but I don't think so. I'm not suggesting that the UK govt owes her any major effort (or perhaps any effort) to get her home.
But, yes, if we assume that she was not a participant in atrocities, and bearing in mind that she was just 15 when she went, and is only 19 and heavily pregnant now, then her returning, junking the Islamist ideology, and resettling here represents to my mind a good outcome.
BTW, at the risk of whataboutery I wonder what the general feeling is about Asma al-Assad (apart from that she's a looker)?
She's not a teenager and she's not pregnant, but she is 'one of ours' and she is married to a man responsible for atrocities in Syria of a nature and scale almost beyond belief.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
I have had the same thoughts myself. The internet is devouring us all.
It depends how it is used.
We're using it now but there is no shortage of intelligent, informative and constructive comments here amid the abuse and stupidity.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
FFS she joined a Nazi death cult. And went to great lengths to do so, showing cunning and intelligence. She secretly crossed frontiers, just so she could support a terror group which was burning people alive and slaving 1000s of women and committing genocidal atrocities and gleefully putting this all online. She joined AFTER we saw all of that
Four years later she expresses absolutely no remorse for this, she still thinks it is OK to behead non-believers, she wishes the Caliphate had prospered, she makes no apology at all to the tens of thousands of ISIS victims, mouldering in their mass graves. She's an unrepentant Nazi. What's more, she's an entitled little Nazi who thinks the British tax payer should fund her rescue, so she can come home and use our free health service.
Comparing her to some vulnerable girl from a care home, in Rochdale, groomed by Asian sex gangs, is grotesque nonsense, and borderline offensive.
She was a kid. She is still barely an adult.
You are completely downplaying her choices and responsibility for those choices. I'm sorry, but how is that acceptable? There are some difficult and nuanced issues in the debate around this woman, particularly with her being pregnant, but her youth is in no way relevant unless, and you surely cannot have intended this, we are downplaying her choices.
Her being young does not matter. She was and is of an age where it is not relevant to her being competent to make her choice.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
One thing on the Woodward case,she wasn't joining the enemy and and a threat to this country.
If this was a white female, my views would be the same now,stop bringing race into it.
Quite, If they'd caught the "white widow", rather than droning her, then I'd feel exactly the same. Race is utterly irrelevant.
Woodward was accused of killing a baby though, which is a fairly serious thing to be accused of. As far as I know this young woman's contribution to IS was simply having babies, two of which have died. That doesn't strike me as particularly dangerous behaviour, except for her.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
FFS she joined a Nazi death cult. And went to great lengths to do so, showing cunning and intelligence. She secretly crossed frontiers, just so she could support a terror group which was burning people alive and slaving 1000s of women and committing genocidal atrocities and gleefully putting this all online. She joined AFTER we saw all of that
Four years later she expresses absolutely no remorse for this, she still thinks it is OK to behead non-believers, she wishes the Caliphate had prospered, she makes no apology at all to the tens of thousands of ISIS victims, mouldering in their mass graves. She's an unrepentant Nazi. What's more, she's an entitled little Nazi who thinks the British tax payer should fund her rescue, so she can come home and use our free health service.
Comparing her to some vulnerable girl from a care home, in Rochdale, groomed by Asian sex gangs, is grotesque nonsense, and borderline offensive.
She was a kid. She is still barely an adult. She has the same rights as you and I, regardless of her views, which I find just as repellent as you do. She is entitled to use our health service, like all British citizens. If she is guilty of any crimes she should be prosecuted for them according to the rule of law.
She is a an adult, however barely, who thinks it's ok to behead people.
Six things we've learnt from May's latest Brexit defeat
1) May will find it much harder now to argue that she has got a Commons majority behind her Brexit strategy.
2) The debate showed that MPs were only able to unite behind Brady because they could not agree what it meant.
3) EU leaders, who were already extremely reluctant to offer much to the UK in terms of backstop concessions because they could not be sure what might get through parliament, will now almost certainly feel even less inclined to engage.
4) New government evidence about how damaging a no-deal Brexit might be will have to be published soon.
5) May’s defeat raises questions about the competence of the government’s management of parliamentary business.
6) Today’s votes suggest that the debate due on Wednesday 27 February (see 9.19am) may end up being a decisive moment for Brexit.
5) is a classic. 'raises questions' about competence indeed.
The Guardian argues that had May let Soubry's amendment go to the vote and get through, the main motion would probably have got through; a less humiliating outcome since government intended to concede Soubry anyway.
She claims she is not trying to stop Brexit and then says she wants a People's vote because people have changed their minds... which of course means stopping Brexit.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
It encourages lowest common denominator posturing moronism and it makes it easier to be against everything rather than for something.
Pretty sure the same things were said about radio, then TV, when they came out.
Perhaps they were.
But perhaps there is a tipping point where lowest common denominator posturing moronism becomes the default.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky poll, I can't help feeling there tends to be a different view when a white Briton is accused of something abroad (cf Louise Woodward), the most common response not generally being 'they are certainly guilty and should face the full force of the justice system in the country they find themselves in' ... particularly if they are not even undergoing prosecution for any crime in that country. To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
FFS she joined a Nazi death cult. And went to great lengths to do so, showing cunning and intelligence. She secretly crossed frontiers, just so she could support a terror group which was burning people alive and slaving 1000s of women and committing genocidal atrocities and gleefully putting this all online. She joined AFTER we saw all of that
Four years later she expresses absolutely no remorse for this, she still thinks it is OK to behead non-believers, she wishes the Caliphate had prospered, she makes no apology at all to the tens of thousands of ISIS victims, mouldering in their mass graves. She's an unrepentant Nazi. What's more, she's an entitled little Nazi who thinks the British tax payer should fund her rescue, so she can come home and use our free health service.
Comparing her to some vulnerable girl from a care home, in Rochdale, groomed by Asian sex gangs, is grotesque nonsense, and borderline offensive.
She was a kid. She is still barely an adult. She has the same rights as you and I, regardless of her views, which I find just as repellent as you do. She is entitled to use our health service, like all British citizens. If she is guilty of any crimes she should be prosecuted for them according to the rule of law.
She is a an adult, however barely, who thinks it's ok to behead people.
No crocodile tears for her.
I hate people who believe in capital punishment as much as you do, but she still has the same rights as everyone else, that is how rights work.
She claims she is not trying to stop Brexit and then says she wants a People's vote because people have changed their minds... which of course means stopping Brexit.
I rather suspect that Soubry believes people are only allowed to change their minds in one direction.
She expressly says it is OK to behead non-believers in her interview. That's surely a crime in itself: incitement to violence, and so on. Moreover, it doesn't really matter what we think or what British law says. Morally and ethically we must yield to the people of Syria and Iraq - the slaved and raped Yazidi women with slaughtered fathers and husbands - they are the victims of ISIS, they should decide what happens to her.
My guess is "send her back to Britain so she can have free health care" would not be their immediate reaction, if asked.
Perhaps I am being too bleeding heart liberal but I don't think so. I'm not suggesting that the UK govt owes her any major effort (or perhaps any effort) to get her home.
But, yes, if we assume that she was not a participant in atrocities, and bearing in mind that she was just 15 when she went, and is only 19 and heavily pregnant now, then her returning, junking the Islamist ideology, and resettling here represents to my mind a good outcome.
BTW, at the risk of whataboutery I wonder what the general feeling is about Asma al-Assad (apart from that she's a looker)?
She's not a teenager and she's not pregnant, but she is 'one of ours' and she is married to a man responsible for atrocities in Syria of a nature and scale almost beyond belief.
I couldn't give a fuck about Mrs Assad as long as she doesn't want to come here.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
I agree.
That, combined with the eclipse of the West. We are experiencing a political, economic and social malaise.
And nearly all the major western countries are showing symptoms of this, in their different ways. America has Trump. We have Brexit. France is racked by the Yellow Vests, and in a diplomatic war with Italy, which has elected the most populist government since the war, and threatens to bring down the euro. Spain is imprisoning the leaders of Catalonia, which wants to break away.
Only Germany seems relatively quiescent, but they also have a far right party in parliament for the first time since Hitler, and they have suddenly absorbed a million refugees in a unilateral move which has enraged neighbours to the East and destabilised the whole EU.
It does feel a bit like the Endtimes, sometimes.
And to think in the 90s it was popular to talk about the "end of history".
She claims she is not trying to stop Brexit and then says she wants a People's vote because people have changed their minds... which of course means stopping Brexit.
Rather stupid of her if those are the words she used. It would be possible to argue for a people's vote as a way to resolve all this indecision (though there are flaws there of course), but as you say if you justify it on the basis of changed minds you are explicitly wanting a vote to deliver that.
It is very certainly a crime to be a member or supporter of ISIS in any way, in Iraq. So she has broken Iraqi law and I'd be surprised if she was not in Iraq at some point. Mosul was their sacred capital for a while.
With reference to the Sky and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
FFS she joinl online. She joined AFTER we saw all of that
Four years later she expresses absolutely no remorse for this, she still thinks it is OK to behead non-believers, she wishes the Caliphate had prospered, she makes no apology at all to the tens of thousands of ISIS victims, mouldering in their mass graves. She's an unrepentant Nazi. What's more, she's an entitled little Nazi who thinks the British tax payer should fund her rescue, so she can come home and use our free health service.
Comparing her to some vulnerable girl from a care home, in Rochdale, groomed by Asian sex gangs, is grotesque nonsense, and borderline offensive.
She was a kid. She is still barely an adult. She has the same rights as you and I, regardless of her views, which I find just as repellent as you do. She is entitled to use our health service, like all British citizens. If she is guilty of any crimes she should be prosecuted for them according to the rule of law.
She is a an adult, however barely, who thinks it's ok to behead people.
No crocodile tears for her.
I'm certainly not going to say even those far worse than her lose all their rights as a result (which is something sometimes implied), but the argument that she was just young strikes me as very worrying. People are held criminally responsible at young ages for a reason, and so irrespective of a debate of what precisely she actually did or encouraged or incited, whatever it was she did do was definitely just as much on her and deserving of the same treatment whether she was 20 or 50 or 70.
She claims she is not trying to stop Brexit and then says she wants a People's vote because people have changed their minds... which of course means stopping Brexit.
I rather suspect that Soubry believes people are only allowed to change their minds in one direction.
I'm wondering who exactly is meant to have changed their minds. Certainly not Soubry.
It would be a tad more convincing if those seeking a second vote weren't those most against and appalled by the first.
CNN: The defeat will further undermine May's pledge to the EU that if it renegotiates its deal with Britain, she can get a revised agreement approved by parliament.
She expressly says it is OK to behead non-believers in her interview. That's surely a crime in itself: incitement to violence, and so on. Moreover, it doesn't really matter what we think or what British law says. Morally and ethically we must yield to the people of Syria and Iraq - the slaved and raped Yazidi women with slaughtered fathers and husbands - they are the victims of ISIS, they should decide what happens to her.
My guess is "send her back to Britain so she can have free health care" would not be their immediate reaction, if asked.
Perhaps I am being too bleeding heart liberal but I don't think so. I'm not suggesting that the UK govt owes her any major effort (or perhaps any effort) to get her home.
But, yes, if we assume that she was not a participant in atrocities, and bearing in mind that she was just 15 when she went, and is only 19 and heavily pregnant now, then her returning, junking the Islamist ideology, and resettling here represents to my mind a good outcome.
BTW, at the risk of whataboutery I wonder what the general feeling is about Asma al-Assad (apart from that she's a looker)?
She's not a teenager and she's not pregnant, but she is 'one of ours' and she is married to a man responsible for atrocities in Syria of a nature and scale almost beyond belief.
I couldn't give a fuck about Mrs Assad as long as she doesn't want to come here.
She was a kid. She is still barely an adult. She has the same rights as you and I, regardless of her views, which I find just as repellent as you do. She is entitled to use our health service, like all British citizens. If she is guilty of any crimes she should be prosecuted for them according to the rule of law.
She is a an adult, however barely, who thinks it's ok to behead people.
No crocodile tears for her.
I hate people who believe in capital punishment as much as you do, but she still has the same rights as everyone else, that is how rights work.
No she doesn't actually. She forfeited a lot of rights by leaving the UK and going to commit atrocities in a foreign land. Anyone who does faces the consequences of their choices in the land they go to. Your rights here don't all apply overseas.
She claims she is not trying to stop Brexit and then says she wants a People's vote because people have changed their minds... which of course means stopping Brexit.
I rather suspect that Soubry believes people are only allowed to change their minds in one direction.
But people are only changing their minds in one direction.
CNN: The defeat will further undermine May's pledge to the EU that if it renegotiates its deal with Britain, she can get a revised agreement approved by parliament.
In a certain way it could allow the EU to make changes in the assumption that parliament will reject them in any case.
They can then say they were being reasonable and are not responsible for any consequences.
She claims she is not trying to stop Brexit and then says she wants a People's vote because people have changed their minds... which of course means stopping Brexit.
I rather suspect that Soubry believes people are only allowed to change their minds in one direction.
But people are only changing their minds in one direction.
Are they ?
And what happens if they change them again afterwards ?
But morally we are obliged to ask the permission of the Syrians and Iraqis before allowing her home, given that, if she has committed crimes, she has aided and abetted these crimes - possibly terrible crimes - against Syrian and Iraqi people, against the Yazidis especially.
They are the victims, not her. This is crucial. They are the ones who deserve justice, and deserve to see it done. They are the ones whose daughters, sons, brothers and sisters were raped, killed, beheaded and burned alive. By ISIS.
Given our own culpabiity for the chaos in Iraq, which gave birth to ISIS, the least we can do is let them judge and punish ISIS members, as they see fit.
If they refuse to have anything to do with her, fine, she can try and get home. Then British justice must do its thing.
I really don't think this is arguable.
As far as I can see nobody has tried to punish her for anything, presumably for the reason that amid all the carnage and misery in Syria and Iraq her crimes are most likely fairly meaningless. My guess would be that there are too many with ties to IS in these countries for them all to be dealt with by the criminal justice system, and it makes sense for them to go after leaders, or at least fighters, rather than useful idiots and raped teenaged girls. As for helping her get home, if the UK authorities think she is guilty of something they should bring her home to face trial, and if they think she isn't then she should receive consular assistance if practical (although it may not be). At the very least, her unborn child is innocent of any crime and deserves our help - I don't think that is arguable.
Twitter is responsible for breaking down party discipline, not just here but in the US as well. It's the perfect vehicle for narcissists the world over.
I’m increasingly of the view that social media and the culture of immediate response will kill liberal democracy.
I agree.
That, combined with the eclipse of the West. We are experiencing a political, economic and social malaise.
And nearly all the major western countries are showing symptoms of this, in their different ways. America has Trump. We have Brexit. France is racked by the Yellow Vests, and in a diplomatic war with Italy, which has elected the most populist government since the war, and threatens to bring down the euro. Spain is imprisoning the leaders of Catalonia, which wants to break away.
Only Germany seems relatively quiescent, but they also have a far right party in parliament for the first time since Hitler, and they have suddenly absorbed a million refugees in a unilateral move which has enraged neighbours to the East and destabilised the whole EU.
About f*cking time! It depends how many he takes with him. If Labour MPs had any integrity it would be 170ish (i.e. those that have no confidence in Corbyn).
Comments
Twitter is responsible for people hardening their opinions and refusing to compromise.
This crisis will never end until someone admits they have lost. So far no matter what happens no side backs down.
In contrast, Leaver MPs have large testicles and are permanently priapic. Unfortunately this restricts the blood supply to their brains, particularly those lobes responsible for memory and reason. Their vocal cords are unaffected and their constant incessant screaming can be heard over great distances.
Northern Ireland only included 6 counties because otherwise the unionist majority wouldn't have been stable.
Referendum is not a solution.
Both are processes like the meaningful vote. Not an answer.
All you are leaving as solutions are deal and revoke. Which is what I said.
Clear as mud.....
Worryingly I think all of this is making no deal more and more likely.
Which other end points do you have?
Looks again at Twitter at 8.00 to find SFA?
The ERG are open about being OK with No Deal. Them voting as they are makes sense. It is voting for what they say they believe in over partisan loyalties.
Corbyn supposedly is against No Deal (Haha!) as are supposed the rest of their MPs. Yet they are voting against a deal and risking no deal happening despite supposedly being against no deal. All for partisan reasons alone.
- Corbyn's amendment failed quite narrowly this time, 10 votes up on two weeks ago. The fact that he favours a deal that is potentially achievable is starting to sink in
- A centrist group of MPs separate from any of the parties looks imminent, perhpas including iministers (perhaps that's the 8 o'clock news)
- A significant number of Labour MPs are keen to block Brexit regardless of the party line
- A significant number of Tory MPs are prepared to block any deal in the hope of a No Deal outcome
Curious that May didn't turn up. I wonder what she was doing?
The only alternatives to no deal are a deal or revoke. TINA.
https://labourlist.org/2019/02/mps-reject-labour-amendment-to-force-early-meaningful-vote-on-brexit/
May is an epic disaster and it’s getting worse.
Six things we've learnt from May's latest Brexit defeat
1) May will find it much harder now to argue that she has got a Commons majority behind her Brexit strategy.
2) The debate showed that MPs were only able to unite behind Brady because they could not agree what it meant.
3) EU leaders, who were already extremely reluctant to offer much to the UK in terms of backstop concessions because they could not be sure what might get through parliament, will now almost certainly feel even less inclined to engage.
4) New government evidence about how damaging a no-deal Brexit might be will have to be published soon.
5) May’s defeat raises questions about the competence of the government’s management of parliamentary business.
6) Today’s votes suggest that the debate due on Wednesday 27 February (see 9.19am) may end up being a decisive moment for Brexit.
To me the case has a lot of parallels with the child grooming gangs in Rochdale etc, a child who was groomed and sexually exploited by criminals. At the very least, her child is blameless, and a British citizen, and deserves the protection of the British state. In our fight against Isis and its vile ideology, we shouldn't lose our sense of humanity.
Anna Soubry and Dominic Grieve are probably putting out a joint statement saying the ERG are imbeciles, and JRM plus Mark Francois are absolute dickheads, or something.
This woman by her own words is OK with murdering people and joined a murderous cult. The view to her is no different than that to sick white murderers like Venables and Thompson who murdered Jamie Bulger.
I was being sarcastic
Come on Umunma, Grieve, Soubry et al and split. Bring it on.
Verified account
@JamesCleverly
Follow Follow @JamesCleverly
More
Labour is red
Tories are blue
Fair & free markets
Will benefit you
(and everybody else)
Happy valentines. ❤️
OR as I would put it
Labour is red
Tories are blue
We all know free markets
Only benefit the few
But, I’ll believe it when I see it.
If this was a white female, my views would be the same now,stop bringing race into it.
Again.
Oh well only 67 mins till we know.
Yet the political parties encourage its use.
That, combined with the eclipse of the West. We are experiencing a political, economic and social malaise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Lewthwaite
Bexiteers = xenophobes / little Englanders / thick mofos
The UK is now a laughing stock!!
How are the morons who voted Leave feeling now?
But, yes, if we assume that she was not a participant in atrocities, and bearing in mind that she was just 15 when she went, and is only 19 and heavily pregnant now, then her returning, junking the Islamist ideology, and resettling here represents to my mind a good outcome.
BTW, at the risk of whataboutery I wonder what the general feeling is about Asma al-Assad (apart from that she's a looker)?
She's not a teenager and she's not pregnant, but she is 'one of ours' and she is married to a man responsible for atrocities in Syria of a nature and scale almost beyond belief.
We're using it now but there is no shortage of intelligent, informative and constructive comments here amid the abuse and stupidity.
Politicians on twatter on the other hand ...
Her being young does not matter. She was and is of an age where it is not relevant to her being competent to make her choice.
No crocodile tears for her.
She claims she is not trying to stop Brexit and then says she wants a People's vote because people have changed their minds... which of course means stopping Brexit.
But perhaps there is a tipping point where lowest common denominator posturing moronism becomes the default.
There's no need to even mention her youth.
It would be a tad more convincing if those seeking a second vote weren't those most against and appalled by the first.
https://skwawkbox.org/2019/02/14/breaking-multiple-sources-umunna-to-resign-labour-whip-tonight/
They can then say they were being reasonable and are not responsible for any consequences.
And what happens if they change them again afterwards ?