It's remarkable that there seems to have been little consideration the possibility that Ms Begum was actually a combatant. Based on the public news she appears to have knowingly gone to join an organisation and after that did what exactly? Sit at home?
I thought her while thing was that she married a jihad enthusiast so potentially yes, I guess ISIS were not feminist and housework is a lot harder if you have shitty infrastructure and domestic tech.
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.
No less ridiculous than the debate around whether the Home Secretary just fancies a good headline. That she could have been a combatant who assisted in the IS effort in an active form should be considered. If she was, it will come out
I though the main purpose of this board (and much of the press) was to tout wildly ill informed speculation as if it were fact...
It's remarkable that there seems to have been little consideration the possibility that Ms Begum was actually a combatant. Based on the public news she appears to have knowingly gone to join an organisation and after that did what exactly? Sit at home?
I thought her while thing was that she married a jihad enthusiast so potentially yes, I guess ISIS were not feminist and housework is a lot harder if you have shitty infrastructure and domestic tech.
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.
No less ridiculous than the debate around whether the Home Secretary just fancies a good headline. That she could have been a combatant who assisted in the IS effort in an active form should be considered. If she was, it will come out
I though the main purpose of this board (and much of the press) was to tout wildly ill informed speculation as if it were fact...
It's remarkable that there seems to have been little consideration the possibility that Ms Begum was actually a combatant. Based on the public news she appears to have knowingly gone to join an organisation and after that did what exactly? Sit at home?
I thought her while thing was that she married a jihad enthusiast so potentially yes, I guess ISIS were not feminist and housework is a lot harder if you have shitty infrastructure and domestic tech.
But it's kind of ridiculous to be having this conversation without actually knowing about this person's situation.
No less ridiculous than the debate around whether the Home Secretary just fancies a good headline. That she could have been a combatant who assisted in the IS effort in an active form should be considered. If she was, it will come out
I’m sure it would be considered. Ask General Dallaire how he would treat such a combatant.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.
Well carlotta was bringing the support out there to the debate of the wider public and how popular this decision was.
You really have some nerve to call other posters 'Patronising' like every thread the evidence is there for you my friend.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Maybe not. I'm open to that argument. But let's not have the bogus ones.
Edit: Having said that, if the power is to exist, this looks like an absolutely reasonable application of it, assuming the legal criteria are met.
4. She’s being made a special case because she’s a media star and her mouth is box office. Greater risks have come back for de programming without the same action against them.
5. Javids motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members who will pick the next Tory leader. Since the times began pushing this he’s had sleepless nights about his leadership chances and shat himself at least once whilst sat at his desk in his office.
In response to 4: Greater risks? Really? You do know this power has been used many times?
In response to 5: Yeah, yeah, of course. By definition no Tory can ever act in what he sees as the national interest. You know - absolutely know - that 'his motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members'. It's wonderfully ironic that you make that assertion whilst pretending to be upholding justice, fairness, and due process.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?
How it would work? She would arrive at LHR The Met would have been tipped off by the airline and will be there to meet her. The child would be taken into the custody of Social Services She would be taken into custody She would be indicted for various crimes A magistrate would decide whether bail was in order or not, If it were then control orders would be implemented There would be a trial She would - I suspect - be convicted She would be imprisoned She would serve her sentence
Does this explain it enough for you?
Nothing there I disagree with. Perhaps others on here need it explaining however.
Surely there is an issue with finding, subpoenaing and then hearing testimony from pretty much all the actual witnesses to her alleged crimes? Do we even have jurisdiction to do all of that?
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law. The one we are about to take control of from the dastardly EU.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Heaven forfend that a Conservative Home Secretary should make decisions that are both morally right and massively popular, instead of pandering to the snowflake left.
If it's popular it must by definition be wrong, according to the Guardian-reading classes.
Nope. And Eagles and Richard Tyndall are hardly raging leftwingers.
They are to a certain extent fairly extreme liberals though, which is more relevant than left-right.
Most people understand it is right that in extreme circumstances a state should have the ability to rescind the rights and obligations of citizenship. If you argue that this isn't one of those cases then you must believe there isn't any case, which is an extremist position.
Personally, I don't think we should strip her of citizenship unless she has another one. We signed the treaties on this, and shouldn't abandon them lightly.
The whole issue, though, is fundamentally irrelevant. If she came back to the UK (and we don't have any obligation to help her get here), then she would be locked up as she has committed a number of different crimes under UK law. (It is also likely that there are other countries where she has committed crimes, who get "first dibs" on her.)
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law. The one we are about to take control of from the dastardly EU.
For those who believe Labour became AS under Corbyn just google Labour Fagin and Labour flying pig campaign posters. Disgustingly Anti Srmitic. Had forgotten how bad they were
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Are you saying our laws are not sufficient to deal with her case?
How it would work? She would arrive at LHR The Met would have been tipped off by the airline and will be there to meet her. The child would be taken into the custody of Social Services She would be taken into custody She would be indicted for various crimes A magistrate would decide whether bail was in order or not, If it were then control orders would be implemented There would be a trial She would - I suspect - be convicted She would be imprisoned She would serve her sentence
Does this explain it enough for you?
Nothing there I disagree with. Perhaps others on here need it explaining however.
Surely there is an issue with finding, subpoenaing and then hearing testimony from pretty much all the actual witnesses to her alleged crimes? Do we even have jurisdiction to do all of that?
Is a good question. But that it will be challenging is no reason not to do it. That said, she seems to have said quite a lot already herself about her actions.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
Can the home secretary strip someone of their citizenship without any due process, and in breach of our treaty commitments?
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Maybe not. I'm open to that argument. But let's not have the bogus ones.
Edit: Having said that, if the power is to exist, this looks like an absolutely reasonable application of it, assuming the legal criteria are met.
4. She’s being made a special case because she’s a media star and her mouth is box office. Greater risks have come back for de programming without the same action against them.
5. Javids motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members who will pick the next Tory leader. Since the times began pushing this he’s had sleepless nights about his leadership chances and shat himself at least once whilst sat at his desk in his office.
In response to 4: Greater risks? Really? You do know this power has been used many times?
In response to 5: Yeah, yeah, of course. By definition no Tory can ever act in what he sees as the national interest. You know - absolutely know - that 'his motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members'. It's wonderfully ironic that you make that assertion whilst pretending to be upholding justice, fairness, and due process.
“ Pour encourages Les autres “ is a damn fine reason too.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.
Well carlotta was bringing the support out there to the debate of the wider public and how popular this decision was.
You really have some nerve to call other posters 'Patronising' like every thread the evidence is there for you my friend.
Patronising doesn’t require a capital in that sentence.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.
Well carlotta was bringing the support out there to the debate of the wider public and how popular this decision was.
You really have some nerve to call other posters 'Patronising' like every thread the evidence is there for you my friend.
Patronising doesn’t require a capital in that sentence.
Looks like the ERG have realized they’re about to destroy their precious Brexit and are trying to find a way out that doesn’t look completely humiliating . So all of a sudden they’re happy to have the Malthouse Unicorn in the future relationship .
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law. The one we are about to take control of from the dastardly EU.
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.
Well carlotta was bringing the support out there to the debate of the wider public and how popular this decision was.
You really have some nerve to call other posters 'Patronising' like every thread the evidence is there for you my friend.
Patronising doesn’t require a capital in that sentence.
Sanders will be encouraged by the fact the last candidate to beat an incumbent President after only 1 term of his party in the White House, Ronald Reagan when he beat Carter in 1980 also faced concerns over whether he was too old to assume the role while also being the runner-up for his party's nomination in 1976
Looks like the ERG have realized they’re about to destroy their precious Brexit and are trying to find a way out that doesn’t look completely humiliating.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
I don’t dispute that I just disagree with it.
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Not yet. He obviously thinks so and presumably has government lawyers who assured him he did, but we shall see.
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
I don’t dispute that I just disagree with it.
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Not yet. He obviously thinks so and presumably has government lawyers who assured him he did, but we shall see.
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
I don’t dispute that I just disagree with it.
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Not yet. He obviously thinks so and presumably has government lawyers who assured him he did, but we shall see.
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
No I meant we should try her.
Yes my view is that she should be tried here, the legalities or otherwise of Javid’s act are secondary to that. She is clearly British. We should deal with it.
And I wonder who has been spreading this fake news? Oh yes it’s sqwawkbox.
Despite viral claims that the Independent Group’s website is registered in the tax haven of Panama, in reality this is the location of a common privacy service called WhoisGuard which is used by many mainstream websites to obscure personal details such as phone numbers from public listings. WhoisGuard, in common with many privacy services, is based in the Central American country in part because it has few laws on data retention.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law. The one we are about to take control of from the dastardly EU.
Looks like the ERG have realized they’re about to destroy their precious Brexit and are trying to find a way out that doesn’t look completely humiliating.
We've heard that one before. I hope it is true.
The Malthouse delusion isn’t going into the WA and will be parked in the future relationship and then the Brexit saga will continue till the universe implodes ! Brexit is like the Lost series which went on and on and on !
The first thing this government has done right for many many years.
And worst rated (4,000 dislikes)
A young lady who was a child when she left should be allowed back and to be kept with her baby. She must be protected too as she is a vulnerable target with all this attention. I hope they arent harmed and are kept safe, together. She made a mistake, we all do.
In the Daily Mail article on the Isis bride citizenship removal:
Yes, for clarity, even though several posters have already made it perfectly clear, nobody is saying for a moment that it won’t be popular. It will. Even more so on the Daily Mail website.
None of this makes it right or even sensible.
This patronising bullshit is beneath you. Engage with the debate. We all got the memo that it is popular, without you wasting your precious time scouring the Daily Mail.
Why don't you engage in the debate instead of the patronising manner you bring to every thread.
I have already written several posts on the matter, they are there for you to read with your own eyes.
Well carlotta was bringing the support out there to the debate of the wider public and how popular this decision was.
You really have some nerve to call other posters 'Patronising' like every thread the evidence is there for you my friend.
Patronising doesn’t require a capital in that sentence.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law. The one we are about to take control of from the dastardly EU.
Some of our law is broken for modern times.
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Absolutely right. There is a kind of weird, liberal, imperialist, quasi-racism here, which says WE as Britain must have the right to decide her fate, good or bad, jail or council house, NHS or private. Since when did we have jurisdiction over Mesopotamia?
She committed her crimes abroad, In Turkey and Syria for sure (she joined ISIS and crossed frontiers illegally) and very likely in Iraq (where ISIS membership is a capital crime). Her multiple husbands confessedly slaved, raped, tortured, butchered and beheaded many people in those lands, ergo it is their right to decide her fate, not ours.
Let her be arrested, tried and judged in Damascus, Ankara, or Baghdad. Their terrible suffering trumps our epicene hand-wringing.
Looks like the ERG have realized they’re about to destroy their precious Brexit and are trying to find a way out that doesn’t look completely humiliating.
We've heard that one before. I hope it is true.
The Malthouse delusion isn’t going into the WA and will be parked in the future relationship and then the Brexit saga will continue till the universe implodes ! Brexit is like the Lost series which went on and on and on !
It only lasted 6 seasons!
And I didn't quite mean that I hope this specific idea they will kick Malthouse into the FR will be true, more just that I hope the ERG are realizing they might get no Brexit and are actually prepared to accept a non perfect Brexit.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
I don’t dispute that I just disagree with it.
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Not yet. He obviously thinks so and presumably has government lawyers who assured him he did, but we shall see.
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
No I meant we should try her.
Following our law and 'not' trying her might be perfectly compatible, hence the need to clarify.
4. She’s being made a special case because she’s a media star and her mouth is box office. Greater risks have come back for de programming without the same action against them.
5. Javids motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members who will pick the next Tory leader. Since the times began pushing this he’s had sleepless nights about his leadership chances and shat himself at least once whilst sat at his desk in his office.
In response to 4: Greater risks? Really? You do know this power has been used many times?
In response to 5: Yeah, yeah, of course. By definition no Tory can ever act in what he sees as the national interest. You know - absolutely know - that 'his motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members'. It's wonderfully ironic that you make that assertion whilst pretending to be upholding justice, fairness, and due process.
5. Of course he can act in national interest not party or his own leadership chances. But the evidence here doesn’t support it. Firstly, The dual nationality course he has taken has been tried and failed before, however whilst the legal wrangling is ongoing even to and after the point he loses in courts, he’s seen to be doing something in the national interest.
Let’s be clear what the national interest here is. Security. It’s not action taken because she has shown no remorse, and justified the arena bombing, sickening though that is to hear. Let’s keep it strictly to security. What is strongest security policy for dealing with IS post caliphate.
The US position is the huge threat to western security is country’s of origin not owning and dealing with their IS criminals. Are you saying that thinking is wrong?
The Home Secretary is engaging a policy that is completely opposite to that thinking. Fact.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
I don’t dispute that I just disagree with it.
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Not yet. He obviously thinks so and presumably has government lawyers who assured him he did, but we shall see.
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
No I meant we should try her.
Yes my view is that she should be tried here, the legalities or otherwise of Javid’s act are secondary to that. She is clearly British. We should deal with it.
So the poor raped and slaved Yazidi women don't get to see justice served in their own lands, for their own slaughtered husbands, coz WE have decided, and we're British, innit.
Looks like the ERG have realized they’re about to destroy their precious Brexit and are trying to find a way out that doesn’t look completely humiliating.
We've heard that one before. I hope it is true.
The Malthouse delusion isn’t going into the WA and will be parked in the future relationship and then the Brexit saga will continue till the universe implodes ! Brexit is like the Lost series which went on and on and on !
It only lasted 6 seasons!
And I didn't quite mean that I hope this specific idea they will kick Malthouse into the FR will be true, more just that I hope the ERG are realizing they might get no Brexit and are actually prepared to accept a non perfect Brexit.
Really it felt like 60 ! The ERG are panicking and are trying to find a ladder to climb down from .
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
Can the home secretary strip someone of their citizenship without any due process, and in breach of our treaty commitments?
I don't know about treaty commitments, but provided the person doesn't become stateless the only requirement in statute law is that the Home Secretary "is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good." So I think the answer to the question about due process is yes.
This new poster, seanT, certainly isn’t wasting anytime getting into the swing of things around here! I having a feeling he doesn’t eat pineapple pizza or drink boxed wine.
Owen Bennett on Twitter claiming 2 Tories will switch to TIG imminently #defectionwatch
Starting to feel like a planned drip drip approach.
Of course it is. They've been Whatsapping for weeks. Maximum effect would mean one or two MPs defecting every other day, for a fortnight, or even a month, if they can, so it totally dominates news cycles - and influences Brexit.
I only watch TV shows once they're at least 20 years old, so I've been watching the original Twin Peaks show recently. Don't have a clue what Lost is about.
Can the Tiggers keen up at least one defection until the weekend? Be interesting if this was planned, and it wasn't just all those they could get on board who announced at the start.
NO.
I'm writing Sunday's threads on Friday as I'm busy this weekend, I need a quiet weekend and don't want to write a thread header at Old Trafford.
They can. The 2 Ian's and Dame Margaret next in line.
I thought Hodge had firmly rejected the idea?
She will go IMO.
Ian Austin Ian Murray tomorrow and Thursday.
I have a CLP meeting Friday Hope to see Toby at it.
This is damaging my already remote chances of becoming a Councillor in May.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Absolutely right. There is a kind of weird, liberal, imperialist, quasi-racism here, which says WE as Britain must have the right to decide her fate, good or bad, jail or council house, NHS or private. Since when did we have jurisdiction over Mesopotamia?
She committed her crimes abroad, In Turkey and Syria for sure (she joined ISIS and crossed frontiers illegally) and very likely in Iraq (where ISIS membership is a capital crime). Her multiple husbands confessedly slaved, raped, tortured, butchered and beheaded many people in those lands, ergo it is their right to decide her fate, not ours.
Let her be arrested, tried and judged in Damascus, Ankara, or Baghdad. Their terrible suffering trumps our epicene hand-wringing.
does that stand up as the strongest security policy for Britain? Are you sure?
Think before you post you ageing raging flip flopping drink addled cradle snatching trot banging coke off cock snorting boxofficemouthing most contrary quite extraordinary simpleton. In every picture of you your as butt ugly as your reasoning.
Though all your vintage posts reproduced this afternoon were delicious to read again I have to say.
Not just the uk where antisemitism appears to be on the rise, in France tonight.
Thousands of people have joined protests across France against a spate of anti-Semitic attacks.
The demonstrators marched under the slogan "That's Enough" at the Place de la République in the capital Paris and other cities.
Figures from across the political spectrum, including former Presidents François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, joined too. France rallies after anti-Semitic attacks
Just hours earlier Jewish graves at a cemetery were desecrated.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Absolutely right. There is a kind of weird, liberal, imperialist, quasi-racism here, which says WE as Britain must have the right to decide her fate, good or bad, jail or council house, NHS or private. Since when did we have jurisdiction over Mesopotamia?
She committed her crimes abroad, In Turkey and Syria for sure (she joined ISIS and crossed frontiers illegally) and very likely in Iraq (where ISIS membership is a capital crime). Her multiple husbands confessedly slaved, raped, tortured, butchered and beheaded many people in those lands, ergo it is their right to decide her fate, not ours.
Let her be arrested, tried and judged in Damascus, Ankara, or Baghdad. Their terrible suffering trumps our epicene hand-wringing.
does that stand up as the strongest security policy for Britain? Are you sure?
Think before you post you ageing raging flip flopping drink addled cradle snatching trot banging coke off cock snorting boxofficemouthing most contrary quite extraordinary simpleton. In every picture of you your as butt ugly as your reasoning.
Though all your vintage posts reproduced this afternoon were delicious to read again I have to say.
I only watch TV shows once they're at least 20 years old, so I've been watching the original Twin Peaks show recently. Don't have a clue what Lost is about.
Crickey...given your policy, a few years you are going to hit the golden age of tv...the wire et al.
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
I think the point some of our more tender readers may be missing is the scale of the popularity of the Javid move on the Isis bride citizenship - as measured by Daily Mail readers (a far from perfect measure, I know, but one our politicians pay some heed to).
Taking the number of 'likes' of the most popular comment as a measure:
Isis bride passport: 39,000 (+11,000 in last hour) Meghan NY trip: 10,000 (story 24h old) Lagerfeld RIP: 4,000 Corbyn TIG: 1,500
In terms of 'Shares' the Isis Bride Passport story has 75,000 compared to Meghan's 7,000.
I think the point some of our more tender readers may be missing is the scale of the popularity of the Javid move on the Isis bride citizenship - as measured by Daily Mail readers (a far from perfect measure, I know, but one our politicians pay some heed to).
Taking the number of 'likes' of the most popular comment as a measure:
Isis bride passport: 39,000 (+11,000 in last hour) Meghan NY trip: 10,000 (story 24h old) Lagerfeld RIP: 4,000 Corbyn TIG: 1,500
In terms of 'Shares' the Isis Bride Passport story has 75,000 compared to Meghan's 7,000.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
I don’t dispute that I just disagree with it.
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Not yet. He obviously thinks so and presumably has government lawyers who assured him he did, but we shall see.
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
No I meant we should try her.
Yes my view is that she should be tried here, the legalities or otherwise of Javid’s act are secondary to that. She is clearly British. We should deal with it.
So the poor raped and slaved Yazidi women don't get to see justice served in their own lands, for their own slaughtered husbands, coz WE have decided, and we're British, innit.
I agree. And what happened to Yazidi babies and children too. And Kurds. And captured opponents, aid workers. The sadistic crimes committed by isis are beyond comprehension. But each individual criminal needs to tried on basis of their contribution to distinguish our law from the nature state of isis. To throw the book at one individual simply because they have become a media star merely drags us down to isis level, sets our justice system back hundreds of years.
And we need to focus on our next steps being strongest for our security. That is the national interest.
I think the point some of our more tender readers may be missing is the scale of the popularity of the Javid move on the Isis bride citizenship - as measured by Daily Mail readers (a far from perfect measure, I know, but one our politicians pay some heed to).
Taking the number of 'likes' of the most popular comment as a measure:
Isis bride passport: 39,000 (+11,000 in last hour) Meghan NY trip: 10,000 (story 24h old) Lagerfeld RIP: 4,000 Corbyn TIG: 1,500
In terms of 'Shares' the Isis Bride Passport story has 75,000 compared to Meghan's 7,000.
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
Netflix and chill. Tons on Netflix. Narcos is brilliant.
She’s a British citizen and I think we should have dealt with her according to the law. Our law.
If Javid has acted legally then he has dealt with her according to our law. By making her someone else's problem, yes, but by definition unless a court says he broke the law he has done what you suggested, if not in the way you'd prefer.
I don’t dispute that I just disagree with it.
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Not yet. He obviously thinks so and presumably has government lawyers who assured him he did, but we shall see.
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
No I meant we should try her.
Yes my view is that she should be tried here, the legalities or otherwise of Javid’s act are secondary to that. She is clearly British. We should deal with it.
So the poor raped and slaved Yazidi women don't get to see justice served in their own lands, for their own slaughtered husbands, coz WE have decided, and we're British, innit.
I agree. And what happened to Yazidi babies and children too. And Kurds. And captured opponents, aid workers. The sadistic crimes committed by isis are beyond comprehension. But each individual criminal needs to tried on basis of their contribution to distinguish our law from the nature state of isis. To throw the book at one individual simply because they have become a media star merely drags us down to isis level, sets our justice system back hundreds of years.
And we need to focus on our next steps being strongest for our security. That is the national interest.
Our security is best served by handing her over to the Iraqi authorities, where they give these women ten minute trials, then shoot them.
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
Netflix and chill. Tons on Netflix. Narcos is brilliant.
That was sort of my point...Nought on traditional telly, the golden age of telly it was all hbo shows, now all the good shows are Netflix.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
Can the home secretary strip someone of their citizenship without any due process, and in breach of our treaty commitments?
I don't know about treaty commitments, but provided the person doesn't become stateless the only requirement in statute law is that the Home Secretary "is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good." So I think the answer to the question about due process is yes.
I must admit, it seems like there should be some legal process involved. Being deprived of British citizenship is a pretty serious punishment, and one would like to think that there was a legal process associated with it.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
Can the home secretary strip someone of their citizenship without any due process, and in breach of our treaty commitments?
I don't know about treaty commitments, but provided the person doesn't become stateless the only requirement in statute law is that the Home Secretary "is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good." So I think the answer to the question about due process is yes.
I must admit, it seems like there should be some legal process involved. Being deprived of British citizenship is a pretty serious punishment, and one would like to think that there was a legal process associated with it.
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
Netflix and chill. Tons on Netflix. Narcos is brilliant.
That was sort of my point...Nought on telly, the golden age of telly it was all hbo shows, now all the good shows are Netflix.
Netflix and amazon have all the money, so they make the best shows. It's not quantum thermophysics. TV drama is still good, REALLY good, you just have to pay for it in a different way.
If I was hard up, and I had to choose between paying my BBC TV licence, or my Netflix sub, I reckon I would go for Netflix. That sums up the horrible fate awaiting the BBC, if it doesn't swiftly find a new way of making money.
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
Netflix and chill. Tons on Netflix. Narcos is brilliant.
That was sort of my point...Nought on telly, the golden age of telly it was all hbo shows, now all the good shows are Netflix.
Netflix and amazon have all the money, so they make the best shows. It's not quantum thermophysics. TV drama is still good, REALLY good, you just have to pay for it in a different way.
If I was hard up, and I had to choose between paying my BBC TV licence, or my Netflix sub, I reckon I would go for Netflix. That sums up the horrible fate awaiting the BBC, if it doesn't swiftly find a new way of making money.
Can’t tell you the last time I watched a bbc show...oh yes I can that McMafia and it was shit. Before that taboo, and the ending was shit...netflix / amazon I have on daily.
BBC problem is now not enough good shows and when they do get one they don’t make enough of them or fast enough. Not a fan, but no doctor who for 18 months, Sherlock years between mini seasons.
Netflix / amazon pump their popular shows every year on the dot.
1. Crittried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhar unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
Can the home secretary strip someone of their citizenship without any due process, and in breach of our treaty commitments?
I don't know about treaty commitments, but provided the person doesn't become stateless the only requirement in statute law is that the Home Secretary "is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good." So I think the answer to the question about due process is yes.
I must admit, it seems like there should be some legal process involved. Being deprived of British citizenship is a pretty serious punishment, and one would like to think that there was a legal process associated with it.
At least there's a right of appeal.
Her right of appeal is explicitly stated in the letter sent to her family. THAT is the due legal process. Javid has made a clearly popular decision, in the interests of national security: he is doing his job to protect the British public. However, in our system the executive does not get to override the judiciary, and if he has over-reached, his decision will be disallowed. That's the law. Equally, the judges may find that he is acting within the law, and it stands.
I really don't understand the hysteria. She's not even in the UK, she's still in the country where her husbands gloatingly murdered Yazidi men and raped their daughters, simultaneously. Begum will see British justice done, which is probably more than she deserves, given how much she loathes Britain.
1. Critics of Javid need to work out what exactly the complaint is. 1a. Sets a precedent? No it doesn't. 1b. Is some kind of Tory nastiness? Err, no, Home Secs of both main parties have done this. 1c. Is illegal because the criteria aren't met or because of Bangladeshi citizenship law? Maybe so, maybe not. If you're not a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, you haven't got the faintest idea whether it is or not. Even if you are a specialist lawyer in full possession of all the facts, it might not be clear-cut.
2. "A Home Sec shouldn't just be able to do this on a whim." Indeed not, that's why there's a set of specific legal tests and an appeal process.
3. Those saying she should be tried here need to confront some reality, such as how this would actually work.
Maybe a Home Secretary shouldn't be able to do it at all?
Perhaps not. But that's not a question able to be asked of a court I would imagine. Which political parties will take up the cause? Labour and the Tories have not, to date. The LDs might, I suppose and were just unwilling or unable to take it up during the coalition years.
I think the Home Secretary can do it legally. I meant maybe he shouldn't have that legal power.
Can the home secretary strip someone of their citizenship without any due process, and in breach of our treaty commitments?
I don't know about treaty commitments, but provided the person doesn't become stateless the only requirement in statute law is that the Home Secretary "is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good." So I think the answer to the question about due process is yes.
I must admit, it seems like there should be some legal process involved. Being deprived of British citizenship is a pretty serious punishment, and one would like to think that there was a legal process associated with it.
There is - a right of appeal - as the Home Office letter to her parents points out, complete with appeal form and guidance notes.
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
Netflix and chill. Tons on Netflix. Narcos is brilliant.
That was sort of my point...Nought on telly, the golden age of telly it was all hbo shows, now all the good shows are Netflix.
Netflix and amazon have all the money, so they make the best shows. It's not quantum thermophysics. TV drama is still good, REALLY good, you just have to pay for it in a different way.
If I was hard up, and I had to choose between paying my BBC TV licence, or my Netflix sub, I reckon I would go for Netflix. That sums up the horrible fate awaiting the BBC, if it doesn't swiftly find a new way of making money.
If they’d open up the iPlayer to overseas viewers I’d gladly pay the cost of the licence fee for access.
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
Netflix and chill. Tons on Netflix. Narcos is brilliant.
That was sort of my point...Nought on telly, the golden age of telly it was all hbo shows, now all the good shows are Netflix.
Netflix and amazon have all the money, so they make the best shows. It's not quantum thermophysics. TV drama is still good, REALLY good, you just have to pay for it in a different way.
If I was hard up, and I had to choose between paying my BBC TV licence, or my Netflix sub, I reckon I would go for Netflix. That sums up the horrible fate awaiting the BBC, if it doesn't swiftly find a new way of making money.
If they’d open up the iPlayer to overseas viewers I’d gladly pay the cost of the licence fee for access.
Agreed. It's mad there isn't some way of paying to access the iPlayer overseas: like you, I would gladly fork out. I've ended up illegally streaming some BBC TV - and thus benefiting pirates - when I would much rather take the legal route.
When you pay a British TV licence there should be some kind of supplementary fee, with a password, enabling you to access it all abroad. Can it be that difficult?
The BBC lacks commercial ingenuity. They are lazy.
I was really talking about fictional drama...but actually I hardly watch any bbc, itv or ch4 these days. It just habit now, Netflix or YouTube are the two services that appear to be the go to when the tv is turned on. Then sport. Then amazon...the rest rarely enter the conversation.
* Leadership Reflections: h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGnJ7pjWcIQ&list=PLNkOamJfdIj-yxlkJMfOh92NyaXMFSAvF * Turning Points: h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8z2rCBpiM4&list=PLNkOamJfdIj-QrQsHOkZIPGMNQ-f5UpHO * The Prime Ministers We Never Had: https://www.youtube.com/user/steverichards14/videos
I was really talking about fictional drama...but actually I hardly watch any bbc, itv or ch4 these days. It just habit now, Netflix or YouTube are the two services that appear to be the go to when the tv is turned on. Then sport. Then amazon...the rest rarely enter the conversation.
Oh, I see. I thought you were talking about documentaries, apols. Yes, I rarely switch my telly on these days: most of what I get I get from YouTube
Talking of tv...is it just me or is there nothing decent on hbo etc? True detective season 3 started well (no spoilers) but is there anything else? And all the major us networks, the original stuff they have tried has been really rubbish over the past 2 years or terrible remakes like magnum pi.
Netflix and chill. Tons on Netflix. Narcos is brilliant.
That was sort of my point...Nought on telly, the golden age of telly it was all hbo shows, now all the good shows are Netflix.
Netflix and amazon have all the money, so they make the best shows. It's not quantum thermophysics. TV drama is still good, REALLY good, you just have to pay for it in a different way.
If I was hard up, and I had to choose between paying my BBC TV licence, or my Netflix sub, I reckon I would go for Netflix. That sums up the horrible fate awaiting the BBC, if it doesn't swiftly find a new way of making money.
If they’d open up the iPlayer to overseas viewers I’d gladly pay the cost of the licence fee for access.
Agreed. It's mad there isn't some way of paying to access the iPlayer overseas: like you, I would gladly fork out. I've ended up illegally streaming some BBC TV - and thus benefiting pirates - when I would much rather take the legal route.
When you pay a British TV licence there should be some kind of supplementary fee, with a password, enabling you to access it all abroad. Can it be that difficult?
The BBC lacks commercial ingenuity. They are lazy.
Night night.
What it would do is kill their revenue from overseas program sales. If the BBC sells Dr Who to ABC to broadcast in Australia they can't very well sell it direct to Australians on the secondary market via iPlayer subscriptions.
BBC isn't going to throw away > 200m quid here on the chance of selling directly
I think the point some of our more tender readers may be missing is the scale of the popularity of the Javid move on the Isis bride citizenship - as measured by Daily Mail readers (a far from perfect measure, I know, but one our politicians pay some heed to).
Taking the number of 'likes' of the most popular comment as a measure:
Isis bride passport: 39,000 (+11,000 in last hour) Meghan NY trip: 10,000 (story 24h old) Lagerfeld RIP: 4,000 Corbyn TIG: 1,500
In terms of 'Shares' the Isis Bride Passport story has 75,000 compared to Meghan's 7,000.
Oddest plausible next step? Lib Dem defectors to TIG? Rump Labour to back Hard-ish Brexit to spite TIGgers? Corbyn and May unite in scheme to have election to purge TIG from Parliament before they have a chance to get organised? So many defections to TIG that there isn't a functioning majority without them and they have to "do a Clegg"?
I think the point some of our more tender readers may be missing is the scale of the popularity of the Javid move on the Isis bride citizenship - as measured by Daily Mail readers (a far from perfect measure, I know, but one our politicians pay some heed to).
Taking the number of 'likes' of the most popular comment as a measure:
Isis bride passport: 39,000 (+11,000 in last hour) Meghan NY trip: 10,000 (story 24h old) Lagerfeld RIP: 4,000 Corbyn TIG: 1,500
In terms of 'Shares' the Isis Bride Passport story has 75,000 compared to Meghan's 7,000.
Javed has won regardless of what happens with Begum now.
1. His hugely popular decision stands and simultaneously Labour take the hit for their perceived support for Begum (nuance around the legalities will be drowned out).
2. The judiciary overturns his decision, with support from Labour, and we get the full fury of the average voter who feels that, yet again, their country is being run by faceless unaccountable individuals.
Javed promises to fight against Labour and the unelected judiciary to look after the UK and its decent citizens.
Comments
You really have some nerve to call other posters 'Patronising' like every thread the evidence is there for you my friend.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/430555-judge-orders-stone-to-appear-in-court-after-he-shared-photo-of-her
In response to 5: Yeah, yeah, of course. By definition no Tory can ever act in what he sees as the national interest. You know - absolutely know - that 'his motives are driven by appealing to a narrow constituency of media and party members'. It's wonderfully ironic that you make that assertion whilst pretending to be upholding justice, fairness, and due process.
The whole issue, though, is fundamentally irrelevant. If she came back to the UK (and we don't have any obligation to help her get here), then she would be locked up as she has committed a number of different crimes under UK law. (It is also likely that there are other countries where she has committed crimes, who get "first dibs" on her.)
Edit: have we established that he acted legally?
Canvassing tomorrow.
(You need a space after the comma.)
And you reference to saying she should be deal with according to our law suggested to me you considered this action was not doing that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/19/independent-group-criticised-for-not-registering-as-political-party
And I wonder who has been spreading this fake news? Oh yes it’s sqwawkbox.
Despite viral claims that the Independent Group’s website is registered in the tax haven of Panama, in reality this is the location of a common privacy service called WhoisGuard which is used by many mainstream websites to obscure personal details such as phone numbers from public listings. WhoisGuard, in common with many privacy services, is based in the Central American country in part because it has few laws on data retention.
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.”
She committed her crimes abroad, In Turkey and Syria for sure (she joined ISIS and crossed frontiers illegally) and very likely in Iraq (where ISIS membership is a capital crime). Her multiple husbands confessedly slaved, raped, tortured, butchered and beheaded many people in those lands, ergo it is their right to decide her fate, not ours.
Let her be arrested, tried and judged in Damascus, Ankara, or Baghdad. Their terrible suffering trumps our epicene hand-wringing.
And I didn't quite mean that I hope this specific idea they will kick Malthouse into the FR will be true, more just that I hope the ERG are realizing they might get no Brexit and are actually prepared to accept a non perfect Brexit.
Night all.
More defections please (Sorry TSE).
Let’s be clear what the national interest here is. Security. It’s not action taken because she has shown no remorse, and justified the arena bombing, sickening though that is to hear. Let’s keep it strictly to security. What is strongest security policy for dealing with IS post caliphate.
The US position is the huge threat to western security is country’s of origin not owning and dealing with their IS criminals. Are you saying that thinking is wrong?
The Home Secretary is engaging a policy that is completely opposite to that thinking. Fact.
Think before you post you ageing raging flip flopping drink addled cradle snatching trot banging coke off cock snorting boxofficemouthing most contrary quite extraordinary simpleton. In every picture of you your as butt ugly as your reasoning.
Though all your vintage posts reproduced this afternoon were delicious to read again I have to say.
Thousands of people have joined protests across France against a spate of anti-Semitic attacks.
The demonstrators marched under the slogan "That's Enough" at the Place de la République in the capital Paris and other cities.
Figures from across the political spectrum, including former Presidents François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, joined too. France rallies after anti-Semitic attacks
Just hours earlier Jewish graves at a cemetery were desecrated.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-europe-47300117
Taking the number of 'likes' of the most popular comment as a measure:
Isis bride passport: 39,000 (+11,000 in last hour)
Meghan NY trip: 10,000 (story 24h old)
Lagerfeld RIP: 4,000
Corbyn TIG: 1,500
In terms of 'Shares' the Isis Bride Passport story has 75,000 compared to Meghan's 7,000.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/231521
And we need to focus on our next steps being strongest for our security. That is the national interest.
Sad.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/22/they-deserve-no-mercy-iraq-deals-briskly-with-accused-women-of-isis
Efficient AND cost-effective. Next question.
https://twitter.com/danthebeemanbee/status/1097987888892051456?s=21
If I was hard up, and I had to choose between paying my BBC TV licence, or my Netflix sub, I reckon I would go for Netflix. That sums up the horrible fate awaiting the BBC, if it doesn't swiftly find a new way of making money.
BBC problem is now not enough good shows and when they do get one they don’t make enough of them or fast enough. Not a fan, but no doctor who for 18 months, Sherlock years between mini seasons.
Netflix / amazon pump their popular shows every year on the dot.
I really don't understand the hysteria. She's not even in the UK, she's still in the country where her husbands gloatingly murdered Yazidi men and raped their daughters, simultaneously. Begum will see British justice done, which is probably more than she deserves, given how much she loathes Britain.
I think downthread the original poster was identified.
https://twitter.com/mattsmithetc/status/1097870034582601732
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0c1rjj7
When you pay a British TV licence there should be some kind of supplementary fee, with a password, enabling you to access it all abroad. Can it be that difficult?
The BBC lacks commercial ingenuity. They are lazy.
Night night.
Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil
* https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0c1rjj7
There are also the Steve Richards docs:
* Leadership Reflections: h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGnJ7pjWcIQ&list=PLNkOamJfdIj-yxlkJMfOh92NyaXMFSAvF
* Turning Points: h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8z2rCBpiM4&list=PLNkOamJfdIj-QrQsHOkZIPGMNQ-f5UpHO
* The Prime Ministers We Never Had: https://www.youtube.com/user/steverichards14/videos
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1097994113021030400
BBC isn't going to throw away > 200m quid here on the chance of selling directly
What a good idea.
Probably true, but I doubt he knows specifics.
1. His hugely popular decision stands and simultaneously Labour take the hit for their perceived support for Begum (nuance around the legalities will be drowned out).
2. The judiciary overturns his decision, with support from Labour, and we get the full fury of the average voter who feels that, yet again, their country is being run by faceless unaccountable individuals.
Javed promises to fight against Labour and the unelected judiciary to look after the UK and its decent citizens.
Job done.