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.
To be honest, way before Brexit, I never liked Soubry anyway.
She’s just as hectoring, aggressive and myopic as the nuttiest of the ERG, and never listens to anyone who disagrees with her but defiantly sneers at them instead.
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.
The Woodward case seems to me to be a completely unhelpful and false analogy.
To describe Woodward as a killer ("killing a baby") is fair, only if you are prepared to describe the leader of the Green party Jonathan Barclay as a killer. (He accidentally killed someone in a motor accident as a teenager).
As regards the ISIS teenager, she should be prosecuted for any crimes she committed. And her child should be taken into care (for the child's sake).
She shows no sign of understanding the perniciousness of the ideology.
Having lost our voice in Brussels, I am not at all sure that Scotland's position improves by losing our voice in London. Meanwhile the right wing nutters who think that doing Putin's will and ending the United Kingdom is a good thing should be locked up for their own protection.
In London today for a Conference and walked round Parliament Square as the double decker "Leave" bus kept circling. Ah, the theatre. By the by, magical to walk down Horse Guards this morning - a part of London I don't often see but beautiful to see the Palace through the trees.
On topic, I won't die in a ditch for the Union unlike Theresa May. If the population of Ulster votes freely and fairly to secede and join the Irish Republic fine (ditto for Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, London or Surrey not that I expect any of them to join the Irish Republic (except perhaps Surrey)).
I suppose the thorny question (as it was before) is who gets to vote. Should the franchise be extended to Ulster-born people residing in the UK or even the Republic of Ireland and why stop there? I don't know.
Another one of life's conundrums seems to be what (if anything) will facilitate a Labour split. 248 Labour MPs voted against the WA in mid January but I suppose if some of them were to be no longer part of the Parliamentary Party that might change. I wonder if May is hoping for a Labour split (divide and conquer) or terrified (new Party sweeps ahead in polls, some Conservatives jump ship too). She seems to have her own issues with Mr Grieve.
Nearly 40 years on from the Limehouse Declaration and the launch of the SDP (what a mad time that was), could we be looking at something similar or very different? If they broke away now, would a new Party (along with the Brexit Party) seek to run candidates in local elections - would Labour Council groups split as well allowing for changes of control?
Back on topic, the question for me is whether agreement to a second independence referendum would be the price for SNP support for a minority Labour administration at Westminster?
Very unlikely that Labour would agree to that given the clear lack of appetite for it now in Scotland.Such a move would drive pro-Union Labour voters into voting Tory.
Clearly you haven't been on Twitter. It's full of bed-wetting liberals - from Harriet Harman to David Aaronovitch - all saying we should show "compassion" etc.
Surely we can all agree that if Harriet Harman is in favour of letting her back in it must be a bad idea?
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).
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).
Are you a member?
His posts suggest that he is a giant member.
Oh sorry, you were asking about his affiliation to Labour?
Only on pb can you see defenders of the terrorist traitor. Disgusting.
Clearly you haven't been on Twitter. It's full of bed-wetting liberals - from Harriet Harman to David Aaronovitch - all saying we should show "compassion" etc.
Sky polling shows that only 16% of Brits agree with this, a mighty 76% think No, let her stay in Syria.
Never has a ruling elite been SO detached from public opinion, on so many levels. It is perhaps another symptom of that wider western malaise we discussed downthread.
Bed wetting liberals now includes former director of global counter-terrorism at MI6 apparently. No wonder the world is going to the dogs!
Having lost our voice in Brussels, I am not at all sure that Scotland's position improves by losing our voice in London. Meanwhile the right wing nutters who think that doing Putin's will and ending the United Kingdom is a good thing should be locked up for their own protection.
Only on pb can you see defenders of the terrorist traitor. Disgusting.
Clearly you haven't been on Twitter. It's full of bed-wetting liberals - from Harriet Harman to David Aaronovitch - all saying we should show "compassion" etc.
Sky polling shows that only 16% of Brits agree with this, a mighty 76% think No, let her stay in Syria.
Never has a ruling elite been SO detached from public opinion, on so many levels. It is perhaps another symptom of that wider western malaise we discussed downthread.
Only on pb can you see defenders of the terrorist traitor. Disgusting.
Clearly you haven't been on Twitter. It's full of bed-wetting liberals - from Harriet Harman to David Aaronovitch - all saying we should show "compassion" etc.
Sky polling shows that only 16% of Brits agree with this, a mighty 76% think No, let her stay in Syria.
Never has a ruling elite been SO detached from public opinion, on so many levels. It is perhaps another symptom of that wider western malaise we discussed downthread.
For Conservative party experts - could May call a GE and then deselect all saboteur MPs ?
I know she couldn't stop them still standing for parliament but could she replace them as the official Conservative candidates in their constituency ?
As I understand it all Tory MP's have to ask their associations if the association are still happy for them to be the candidate. The association can say no.
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
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).
Are you a member?
His posts suggest that he is a giant member.
Oh sorry, you were asking about his affiliation to Labour?
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.
For Conservative party experts - could May call a GE and then deselect all saboteur MPs ?
I know she couldn't stop them still standing for parliament but could she replace them as the official Conservative candidates in their constituency ?
As I understand it all Tory MP's have to ask their associations if the association are still happy for them to be the candidate. The association can say no.
But I believe they also need to be on the CCHQ approved candidate list.
Otherwise you could have someone elected as an Conservative who opposed the Conservative party as long as he managed to flood a local association with supporters.
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Wouldn't recognizing IS as a state when it was operating in the territory of other countries have led to diplomatic complications with those countries ?
In London today for a Conference and walked round Parliament Square as the double decker "Leave" bus kept circling. Ah, the theatre. By the by, magical to walk down Horse Guards this morning - a part of London I don't often see but beautiful to see the Palace through the trees.
On topic, I won't die in a ditch for the Union unlike Theresa May. If the population of Ulster votes freely and fairly to secede and join the Irish Republic fine (ditto for Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, London or Surrey not that I expect any of them to join the Irish Republic (except perhaps Surrey)).
I suppose the thorny question (as it was before) is who gets to vote. Should the franchise be extended to Ulster-born people residing in the UK or even the Republic of Ireland and why stop there? I don't know.
Another one of life's conundrums seems to be what (if anything) will facilitate a Labour split. 248 Labour MPs voted against the WA in mid January but I suppose if some of them were to be no longer part of the Parliamentary Party that might change. I wonder if May is hoping for a Labour split (divide and conquer) or terrified (new Party sweeps ahead in polls, some Conservatives jump ship too). She seems to have her own issues with Mr Grieve.
Nearly 40 years on from the Limehouse Declaration and the launch of the SDP (what a mad time that was), could we be looking at something similar or very different? If they broke away now, would a new Party (along with the Brexit Party) seek to run candidates in local elections - would Labour Council groups split as well allowing for changes of control?
Back on topic, the question for me is whether agreement to a second independence referendum would be the price for SNP support for a minority Labour administration at Westminster?
Very unlikely that Labour would agree to that given the clear lack of appetite for it now in Scotland.Such a move would drive pro-Union Labour voters into voting Tory.
LOL, Scotland expert NOT
Well you certainly showed your expertise in May 2017 when you dismissed the prospect of the SNP falling below 50 seats. You were so keen to accept bets re-that proposition.
Chris Leslie takes a step closer towards leaving Labour for the new 'CDU' centrist party that by all accounts is days away from being set up "For me idea that the Labour party is not together and arguing against this disaster is for me entirely heartbreaking."
Clearly you haven't been on Twitter. It's full of bed-wetting liberals - from Harriet Harman to David Aaronovitch - all saying we should show "compassion" etc.
Surely we can all agree that if Harriet Harman is in favour of letting her back in it must be a bad idea?
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.
I agree on the poor innocent baby. If it can be done safely, she should give the baby up and let him/her be flown home to her wider family in the UK, however repulsive they are.
The rest of your argument is incorrect. Syria is in chaos but the Iraqis, Kurds and Turks are absolutely eager and keen to arrest, judge and punish every ISIS member they can find. She would certainly be of interest to Iraqi courts. It is estimated that 20,000 Isis members are in Iraqi jails, many hundreds have been executed.
Moreover:
"Iraq's anti-terrorism law empowers courts to convict people who are believed to have helped ISIS even if they are not accused of carrying out attacks.
It also allows for the death penalty to be issued against anyone -- including non-combatants -- found guilty of belonging to ISIS"
That's their law. If she was at any point in Iraq, and it can be proved, she will probably be hung or shot, or at best get life in prison.
I find this as brutal as anybody, but I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of helping her evade justice in the places where she committed her crimes.
I would have thought there is good grounds for putting the baby up for new identity and adoption.
In London today for a Conference and walked round Parliament Square as the double decker "Leave" bus kept circling. Ah, the theatre. By the by, magical to walk down Horse Guards this morning - a part of London I don't often see but beautiful to see the Palace through the trees.
On topic, I won't die in a ditch for the Union unlike Theresa May. If the population of Ulster votes freely and fairly to secede and join the Irish Republic fine (ditto for Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, London or Surrey not that I expect any of them to join the Irish Republic (except perhaps Surrey)).
I suppose the thorny question (as it was before) is who gets to vote. Should the franchise be extended to Ulster-born people residing in the UK or even the Republic of Ireland and why stop there? I don't know.
Another one of life's conundrums seems to be what (if anything) will facilitate a Labour split. 248 Labour MPs voted against the WA in mid January but I suppose if some of them were to be no longer part of the Parliamentary Party that might change. I wonder if May is hoping for a Labour split (divide and conquer) or terrified (new Party sweeps ahead in polls, some Conservatives jump ship too). She seems to have her own issues with Mr Grieve.
Nearly 40 years on from the Limehouse Declaration and the launch of the SDP (what a mad time that was), could we be looking at something similar or very different? If they broke away now, would a new Party (along with the Brexit Party) seek to run candidates in local elections - would Labour Council groups split as well allowing for changes of control?
Back on topic, the question for me is whether agreement to a second independence referendum would be the price for SNP support for a minority Labour administration at Westminster?
Very unlikely that Labour would agree to that given the clear lack of appetite for it now in Scotland.Such a move would drive pro-Union Labour voters into voting Tory.
LOL, Scotland expert NOT
Well you certainly showed your expertise in May 2017 when you dismissed the prospect of the SNP falling below 50 seats. You were so keen to accept bets re-that proposition.
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.
20 years hard labour is what she needs
There is such an unkind pun could be made about a teenager with three children having a lot of hard labour...
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.
I agree on the poor innocent baby. If it can be done safely, she should give the baby up and let him/her be flown home to her wider family in the UK, however repulsive they are.
The rest of your argument is incorrect. Syria is in chaos but the Iraqis, Kurds and Turks are absolutely eager and keen to arrest, judge and punish every ISIS member they can find. She would certainly be of interest to Iraqi courts. It is estimated that 20,000 Isis members are in Iraqi jails, many hundreds have been executed.
Moreover:
"Iraq's anti-terrorism law empowers courts to convict people who are believed to have helped ISIS even if they are not accused of carrying out attacks.
It also allows for the death penalty to be issued against anyone -- including non-combatants -- found guilty of belonging to ISIS"
That's their law. If she was at any point in Iraq, and it can be proved, she will probably be hung or shot, or at best get life in prison.
I find this as brutal as anybody, but I am even more uncomfortable with the idea of helping her evade justice in the places where she committed her crimes.
I would have thought there is good grounds for putting the baby up for new identity and adoption.
If the baby makes it back here yes. I don't see that being likely and we don't have jurisdiction in Syria to solely repatriate the baby.
For Conservative party experts - could May call a GE and then deselect all saboteur MPs ?
I know she couldn't stop them still standing for parliament but could she replace them as the official Conservative candidates in their constituency ?
As I understand it all Tory MP's have to ask their associations if the association are still happy for them to be the candidate. The association can say no.
But I believe they also need to be on the CCHQ approved candidate list.
Otherwise you could have someone elected as an Conservative who opposed the Conservative party as long as he managed to flood a local association with supporters.
That is correct and applies to the replacement candidate if the decision is no.
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.
Take the points but as regards Assad's Syria I think it's extremely arguable that we should encourage them to 'do as they see fit' with a British teenage girl.
Interesting header but Attlee in 1945 and 1950 and Wilson in 1966 and October 1975 both won most seats in England as well as Blair in 1997, 2001 and 2005 (though Howard won most votes in the latter in England if not most seats).
Even if Remain voting Scotland votes for independent and Remain voting Northern Ireland for Irish unification in the event of No Deal I cannot see Wales joining them. Not only did Wales vote Leave but Plaid is far weaker than its fellow nationalist parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Plaid has never won most seats in Wales in the Welsh Assembly unlike the SNP and at the 2017 general election Plaid got just 10% compared to the 37% the SNP got and the 27% Sinn Fein got.
Do not forget either Wales was informally united with England in the 13th century and formally in the 16th century, well before Scotland joined the Union in the 18th century and Ireland joined the Union in the 19th century
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.
20 years hard labour is what she needs
There is such an unkind pun could be made about a teenager with three children having a lot of hard labour...
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Yes, we should lean on Turkey to prosecute her.
On the treaties against statelessness, they aren't fit for the modern era. They don't take into account stateless operators like IS, we should be able revoke citizenship I'm cases where there is incontrovertible proof that a person has declared themselves allied to a hostile entity, nation or not.
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).
Are you a member?
For now, yes.
Let's see how Brexit unfolds to see if I continue to be a member.
I am losing faith to be honest. Just look at the Labour front bench. The fact that Keir Starmer (who's not that great) is head and shoulders above any one else is a worry
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Wouldn't recognizing IS as a state when it was operating in the territory of other countries have led to diplomatic complications with those countries ?
An excellent point.
Well, we recognised the existence of Germany the state, even when it was operating inside - for example - France, so that shouldn't be impossible. We could always give them a bit of uninhabitable land somewhere if necessary... Heck, maybe any of them* who want to live on Rockall should be free to do so.
* So long as they're able to get their entirely on their own steam without using the territorial waters or airspace of any other country.
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.
Take the points but as regards Assad's Syria I think it's extremely arguable that we should encourage them to 'do as they see fit' with a British teenage girl.
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.
Take the points but as regards Assad's Syria I think it's extremely arguable that we should encourage them to 'do as they see fit' with a British teenage girl.
She's not British. She gave up that moral right the day she decided to join IS.
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Yes, we should lean on Turkey to prosecute her.
On the treaties against statelessness, they aren't fit for the modern era. They don't take into account stateless operators like IS, we should be able revoke citizenship I'm cases where there is incontrovertible proof that a person has declared themselves allied to a hostile entity, nation or not.
That doesn't solve the problem, though. Ultimately, people need to have somewhere to which they are sent. If said IS lady doesn't have a state, are the poor Lebanese - if she's ended up in a refugee camp there - responsible for her?
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Yes, we should lean on Turkey to prosecute her.
On the treaties against statelessness, they aren't fit for the modern era. They don't take into account stateless operators like IS, we should be able revoke citizenship I'm cases where there is incontrovertible proof that a person has declared themselves allied to a hostile entity, nation or not.
That doesn't solve the problem, though. Ultimately, people need to have somewhere to which they are sent. If said IS lady doesn't have a state, are the poor Lebanese - if she's ended up in a refugee camp there - responsible for her?
I think once we revoke citizenship we can pay whichever country she ends up in to deal with her however they see fit.
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).
Are you a member?
Quite often - oh - you meant a Labour member........
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).
Are you a member?
For now, yes.
Let's see how Brexit unfolds to see if I continue to be a member.
I am losing faith to be honest. Just look at the Labour front bench. The fact that Keir Starmer (who's not that great) is head and shoulders above any one else is a worry
If Remaining is everything to you maybe you will end up Leaving the party.
To me its a side issue compared to replacing the Tories in Government
I have a heard from a reliable source that a cross party group of MPs will form an alliance to stop No Deal Brexit.
I wonder if that's the 8pm announcement.
Now back to my Valentine's Day break.
How?
You can delay a no deal Brexit but how can you stop it?
Several avenues apparently.
Such as?
Deal, no deal or revoke. Those are the only end states. Until Parliament comes down to either a deal or revoke then no deal is the legal default as per Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
Brexit - a calmaity Bexiteers = xenophobes / little Englanders / thick mofos
The UK is now a laughing stock!!
How are the morons who voted Leave feeling now?
That "laughing stock" doesn't bother me---after all we're famous for our "humour" (see Ben Jonson eg). No: it's the practicalities that worry me. Let's get Trump to sort us out.
I couldn't give a fuck about Mrs Assad as long as she doesn't want to come here.
She's been here loads of times I believe.
I mention her more from the point of view of considering to what extent women should be held culpable for the violence of their men. Because violence is almost exclusively a male thing let's face it.
But any case don't worry - sounds like this one is a slam dunk in your mind.
I have a heard from a reliable source that a cross party group of MPs will form an alliance to stop No Deal Brexit.
I wonder if that's the 8pm announcement.
Now back to my Valentine's Day break.
How? By voting for the damn deal at last?
Because if not it isn't in their gift and it's just more drunken posturing.
One way, by revoking A50 with a clause saying we will only Leave once a deal has been agreed and ratified by both parties.
That is a unicorn I'm afraid.
If we revoke then the EU no longer has the legal right to negotiate a leave deal with us. That is the whole basis of Article 50. It is why they would not start negotiations until we had triggered it.
Comments
She should not be allowed back in the UK - period!
She’s just as hectoring, aggressive and myopic as the nuttiest of the ERG, and never listens to anyone who disagrees with her but defiantly sneers at them instead.
Lets get some proper Labour Candidates in these Constituencies.
To describe Woodward as a killer ("killing a baby") is fair, only if you are prepared to describe the leader of the Green party Jonathan Barclay as a killer. (He accidentally killed someone in a motor accident as a teenager).
As regards the ISIS teenager, she should be prosecuted for any crimes she committed. And her child should be taken into care (for the child's sake).
She shows no sign of understanding the perniciousness of the ideology.
I know she couldn't stop them still standing for parliament but could she replace them as the official Conservative candidates in their constituency ?
Oh sorry, you were asking about his affiliation to Labour?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/14/former-mi6-director-says-schoolgirl-shamima-begum-who-joined-isis-should-be-given-a-chance
https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=news&q=Chuka Umunna&src=tyah
https://twitter.com/bbcpolitics/status/1096045001119653893?s=21
Does she have any citizenship other than British?*
It matter because we are signatories to two treaties (1954 and 1961), that impose serious restrictions on our ability to remove citizenship from people who have no other citizenship. If another country were to chuck her on a plane to the UK, we would have very little choice other than to accept her.**
Fortunately, it seems like she is likely guilty of a litany of crimes, so we can probably lean on Turkey, Syria and the like to prosecute her, and so the situation will hopefully resolve itself without us having to do anything.
* I said at the time we should recognise IS as a state, as it would save us a ton of problems later.
** We could always withdraw or abrogate these treaties. There are no exit clauses on these, so in theory that's impossible. But the reality is that we could leave them unilaterally, as with the backstop, at any time we chose.
Otherwise you could have someone elected as an Conservative who opposed the Conservative party as long as he managed to flood a local association with supporters.
Thems fighting words, I like it.
@SouthamObserver
I.... ahh... agree with JRM there.
Chris Leslie takes a step closer towards leaving Labour for the new 'CDU' centrist party that by all accounts is days away from being set up
"For me idea that the Labour party is not together and arguing against this disaster is for me entirely heartbreaking."
But it would be tasteless.
Even if Remain voting Scotland votes for independent and Remain voting Northern Ireland for Irish unification in the event of No Deal I cannot see Wales joining them. Not only did Wales vote Leave but Plaid is far weaker than its fellow nationalist parties in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Plaid has never won most seats in Wales in the Welsh Assembly unlike the SNP and at the 2017 general election Plaid got just 10% compared to the 37% the SNP got and the 27% Sinn Fein got.
Do not forget either Wales was informally united with England in the 13th century and formally in the 16th century, well before Scotland joined the Union in the 18th century and Ireland joined the Union in the 19th century
So Skawkbox published rubbish made up in the paranoid recesses of what passes for Steven Walker's mind?
Where's that Aladdin clip someone posted earlier?
On the treaties against statelessness, they aren't fit for the modern era. They don't take into account stateless operators like IS, we should be able revoke citizenship I'm cases where there is incontrovertible proof that a person has declared themselves allied to a hostile entity, nation or not.
Let's see how Brexit unfolds to see if I continue to be a member.
I am losing faith to be honest. Just look at the Labour front bench. The fact that Keir Starmer (who's not that great) is head and shoulders above any one else is a worry
Well, we recognised the existence of Germany the state, even when it was operating inside - for example - France, so that shouldn't be impossible. We could always give them a bit of uninhabitable land somewhere if necessary... Heck, maybe any of them* who want to live on Rockall should be free to do so.
* So long as they're able to get their entirely on their own steam without using the territorial waters or airspace of any other country.
She has made her choice.
He's going to enter a legal challenge under Article 5 that this is cruel and unusual punishment, and World popcorn supplies will collapse.
I wonder if that's the 8pm announcement.
Now back to my Valentine's Day break.
LOL
In practical terms, money talks.
You can delay a no deal Brexit but how can you stop it?
To me its a side issue compared to replacing the Tories in Government
Because if not it isn't in their gift and it's just more drunken posturing.
Deal, no deal or revoke. Those are the only end states. Until Parliament comes down to either a deal or revoke then no deal is the legal default as per Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
I expect its significance and impact to be grossly overhyped.
No: it's the practicalities that worry me.
Let's get Trump to sort us out.
I mention her more from the point of view of considering to what extent women should be held culpable for the violence of their men. Because violence is almost exclusively a male thing let's face it.
But any case don't worry - sounds like this one is a slam dunk in your mind.
Most of the commentators that get retwatted on here know as much as any of us. That is, nothing.
If we revoke then the EU no longer has the legal right to negotiate a leave deal with us. That is the whole basis of Article 50. It is why they would not start negotiations until we had triggered it.
It’s a squib, with promise of boom.