politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New polling analysis by Peter Kellner suggests that the Tories

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » New polling analysis by Peter Kellner suggests that the Tories could lose power if an election was held now

The polling expert and former President of YouGov, Peter Kellner, has an article in the latest New European based on his study of the data from the last four weeks of Opinium polls. Unlike most other pollsters this firm has a range of cross tabs that make such an analysis possible. These include vote splits in the seats gained by CON from LAB at GE2019 as well on those seats gained by Johnson’s party over the last decade.

Read the full story here

Philip_Thompson

I respect Kellner but take anything paid for by the New European with more salt than I'd put in my cooking.

MikeSmithson

Philip_Thompson said:

I respect Kellner but take anything paid for by the New European with more salt than I'd put in my cooking.

That is crazy analysis. Kellner is a big enough figure that what he writes is not influenced by who publishes it.

ydoethur

My anecdotal experience is that Cummings also played exceptionally badly in these seats. Having run a successful campaign on the basis of forcing arrogant, out of touch elites to listen, he then went and behaved like a member of the arrogant, out-of-touch elite.

FF43

Government trying to grab the narrative on the Russia Report. I'm not sure what it contains, but clearly they are spooked by it (to mix a metaphor). The Julian Lewis shenanigans can surely be seen in that light.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/16/uk-says-russia-sought-to-interfere-in-2019-election-by-leaking-documents-online

PS the bit they are concerned about wont be what's covered by the Guardian article, hence why they are talking about it.

RochdalePioneers

OGH - surely this cannot be true. I am Assured on this forum that the Tories have an Unassailable position in parliament, in the public and indeed in the Hearts of the red wall voters.

eek

Philip_Thompson said:

I respect Kellner but take anything paid for by the New European with more salt than I'd put in my cooking.

It's using poll data from a trusted polling company with additional analysis by someone who knows how to use polling data.

You may not like the paper who commissioned the article (if indeed they did and it wasn't offered to them directly) but that doesn't invalidate the details.

Personally I'm surprised as I don't think the red wall was liable to turn red again just yet.... I suspect the day was going to come but it would be a year or so away after unemployment appeared.

Tres

Talking about what Westminster can and can't do legally misses the point.

Queen Elizabeth took a royal oath to govern according to our laws and customs at her coronation. She even chose to swear an extra special oath for Scotland in 1952 before her coronation because we (the Scots) are so special as she ain't the head of our church.

So these oaths Queenie swore preserve the rights and priviledges of the Scottish Crown as endorsed at the time of Queen Anne. These rights inlcude the principles asserted since the Declaration of Arbroath that the noble and common people of Scotland believe in a single kingdom and possess the freedom to select a king who will protect these rights and priviledges.

So if she and her servant Johnson choose to break these oaths, she can just jog on tout suite.

HYUFD

It was not just stopping Corbyn, it was also delivering Brexit the Red Wall voted for and Brexit was delivered in January.

However if Starmer came out and said he would keep free movement which he has not said specifically yet then I think that Red Wall swing would decline

MrEd

I think, from a common sense standpoint, this doesn't feel right. For the Tories to be seeing an above average swing against them in the seats they won last time or the decade before, they must be doing better than the swing in traditional, Tory suburban areas and seats. But these will have a higher weighting of pro-Remain, wealthier Conservatives who (1) are more likely to see SKS as a credible alternative and (2) are no longer scared off Labour by the fears of a smash and grab on their wealth. Moreover, his comments don't chime with the Guardian article that interviewed voters in Leigh

Most of the other data seems to suggest that Labour has been building support by picking up low hanging fruit such as former supporters who maybe went to the Lib Dems due to the anti-semitism row. That makes more sense.

FF43

Interesting analysis. I would want to know if the responders were different in each of the four aggregated surveys or the same people each time.

ydoethur

It is a bit weird though if their vote is declining significantly in these seats that they continue to have such healthy shares overall.

Where are these votes coming from? Are they coming from former Tories in the south? If so, then does that make the boundary review important again?

Theuniondivvie

Cripes, it's shit hitting fan time. Time to set Project Damned Russkies tried to get damned Marxist Corbyn as PM into motion.

https://twitter.com/RossMcCaff/status/1283733981532508160?s=20

Pulpstar

Also from Opinium:

Is Labour ready for government?

"Con gains in Red wall" - Ready 25%, Not ready 60%.

squareroot2

IF... IF.... IF... IF... IF...

BluestBlue

Pulpstar said:

Also from Opinium:

Is Labour ready for government?

"Con gains in Red wall" - Ready 25%, Not ready 60%.

That 'Ready for Government' figure is definitely one to watch. As it stands today, there's no way on Earth that a 25-60 split against the opposition would propel them to power.

Pulpstar

Looking at the latest Opinium (A favourable pollster for Labour recently) it seems the following are true:

i) Starmer is a big positive for Labour
ii) Johnson is a drag for the Tories.
iii) Sunak is miles and miles and miles ahead of Dodds, and likely ahead of Starmer too.
iv) The Tory brand/party is better than Labour still.

If Johnson gets replaced by Sunak before the next election it'll be an absolute walk in the park for the Tories.

kinabalu

HYUFD said:

It was not just stopping Corbyn, it was also delivering Brexit the Red Wall voted for and Brexit was delivered in January.

Yes. Cue a 2nd airing for my "BBC election" -

B - rexit was the key issue.
B - oris united the Leave vote.
C - orbyn spooked Remainers into fracturing.

Theuniondivvie

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

ydoethur

Tres said:

Talking about what Westminster can and can't do legally misses the point.

Queen Elizabeth took a royal oath to govern according to our laws and customs at her coronation. She even chose to swear an extra special oath for Scotland in 1952 before her coronation because we (the Scots) are so special as she ain't the head of our church.

So these oaths Queenie swore preserve the rights and priviledges of the Scottish Crown as endorsed at the time of Queen Anne. These rights inlcude the principles asserted since the Declaration of Arbroath that the noble and common people of Scotland believe in a single kingdom and possess the freedom to select a king who will protect these rights and priviledges.

So if she and her servant Johnson choose to break these oaths, she can just jog on tout suite.

Blimey. Coronation oaths. Now there is a rabbit hole and a half in terms of constitutional law.

If you don’t have a headache and want one, try this article:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ecclesiastical-law-journal/article/coronation-oath/F83079759125218B8D97BA1722954CBC/core-reader

RobD

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

Swindon_Addick

The key question is: if the Tories are doing worse than the national average swing in the seats they won recently, where are the places they're doing better than average? If those are safe Tory areas, they have a big problem. But if they're the seats that are traditionally Tory where Labour has been making gains due to demographics, then the effect on a Tory majority wouldn't be as great as is implied here.

So it's an interesting analysis but I'm not sure I've seen enough to convince me to drop uniform national swing as the best available guess of the outcome.

Alphabet_Soup

Tres said:

Talking about what Westminster can and can't do legally misses the point.

Queen Elizabeth took a royal oath to govern according to our laws and customs at her coronation. She even chose to swear an extra special oath for Scotland in 1952 before her coronation because we (the Scots) are so special as she ain't the head of our church.

So these oaths Queenie swore preserve the rights and priviledges of the Scottish Crown as endorsed at the time of Queen Anne. These rights inlcude the principles asserted since the Declaration of Arbroath that the noble and common people of Scotland believe in a single kingdom and possess the freedom to select a king who will protect these rights and priviledges.

So if she and her servant Johnson choose to break these oaths, she can just jog on tout suite.

I rather like the Scottish spelling of "privilege". More gutsy than the effete English.

Pulpstar

FF43 said:

Interesting analysis. I would want to know if the responders were different in each of the four aggregated surveys or the same people each time.

Definitely different, the odds of the same people being in the four surveys would be an infintesimally small chance I think.

IanB2

ydoethur said:

It is a bit weird though if their vote is declining significantly in these seats that they continue to have such healthy shares overall.

Where are these votes coming from? Are they coming from former Tories in the south? If so, then does that make the boundary review important again?

And, most pertinently, if these seats have Tory vote losses out of line with the national poll totals, where are the seats where the Tories are doing better to balance overall with their apparent national lead?

williamglenn

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

It's a squirrel because the bigger issue is Brexit.

RobD

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

It's a squirrel because the bigger issue is Brexit.

A double squirrel. Interesting. Perhaps Lewis is a team player after all?

Luckyguy1983

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

BluestBlue

Alphabet_Soup said:

Tres said:

Talking about what Westminster can and can't do legally misses the point.

Queen Elizabeth took a royal oath to govern according to our laws and customs at her coronation. She even chose to swear an extra special oath for Scotland in 1952 before her coronation because we (the Scots) are so special as she ain't the head of our church.

So these oaths Queenie swore preserve the rights and priviledges of the Scottish Crown as endorsed at the time of Queen Anne. These rights inlcude the principles asserted since the Declaration of Arbroath that the noble and common people of Scotland believe in a single kingdom and possess the freedom to select a king who will protect these rights and priviledges.

So if she and her servant Johnson choose to break these oaths, she can just jog on tout suite.

I rather like the Scottish spelling of "privilege". More gutsy than the effete English.

Not infrequently, those who most like to blather on about 'privilege' are the least able to spell it...

eek

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

It's a squirrel because the bigger issue is Brexit.

+1 as with every news story at the moment the question anyone sane is asking is what actual news is this announcement trying to hide..

FF43

ydoethur said:

It is a bit weird though if their vote is declining significantly in these seats that they continue to have such healthy shares overall.

Where are these votes coming from? Are they coming from former Tories in the south? If so, then does that make the boundary review important again?

Swings from LD to Labour mostly in Opinium polls relative to GE. Con 44% to 42%; Lab 32% to 38%; LD 12% to 6%. Which doesn't quite fit Kellner's analysis. But maybe Labour's vote in the North would be particularly efficient. FPTP has these quirks.

IanB2

According to CNN 1 million people in the UK have quit smoking during the pandemic.

HYUFD

Swindon_Addick said:

The key question is: if the Tories are doing worse than the national average swing in the seats they won recently, where are the places they're doing better than average? If those are safe Tory areas, they have a big problem. But if they're the seats that are traditionally Tory where Labour has been making gains due to demographics, then the effect on a Tory majority wouldn't be as great as is implied here.

So it's an interesting analysis but I'm not sure I've seen enough to convince me to drop uniform national swing as the best available guess of the outcome.

The latest Yougov has the Tories up 57% to 27% in the South and ahead 51% to 36% in the Midlands and Wales.

Labour is ahead 53% to 29% in London and 49% to 44% in the North
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/ai16ajr8zo/TheTimes_VI_200709_V2_W.pdf

williamglenn

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

It's a squirrel because the bigger issue is Brexit.

A double squirrel. Interesting. Perhaps Lewis is a team player after all?

You're missing the point. Before the election, the government declined to publish the report into Russian interference in UK politics, and particularly the referendum, so it's a bit rich for them to now try to distract from it by saying Russia interfered in that very election.

RobD

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

It's a squirrel because the bigger issue is Brexit.

A double squirrel. Interesting. Perhaps Lewis is a team player after all?

You're missing the point. Before the election, the government declined to publish the report into Russian interference in UK politics, and particularly the referendum, so it's a bit rich for them to now try to distract from it by saying Russia interfered in that very election.

They are trying to distract from the report about Russian interference in elections by talking about Russian interference in elections?

TOPPING

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

Is this one of those times when the lefties and the righties come together to say look how biased the BBC is?

Theuniondivvie

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

The (entirely ineffectual) leak of a Reddit file is the only subject of the intelligence report? I think the current government are shameless rsoles but I think even they'd baulk at that.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283734264564023296?s=20

Nigelb

Alphabet_Soup said:

Tres said:

Talking about what Westminster can and can't do legally misses the point.

Queen Elizabeth took a royal oath to govern according to our laws and customs at her coronation. She even chose to swear an extra special oath for Scotland in 1952 before her coronation because we (the Scots) are so special as she ain't the head of our church.

So these oaths Queenie swore preserve the rights and priviledges of the Scottish Crown as endorsed at the time of Queen Anne. These rights inlcude the principles asserted since the Declaration of Arbroath that the noble and common people of Scotland believe in a single kingdom and possess the freedom to select a king who will protect these rights and priviledges.

So if she and her servant Johnson choose to break these oaths, she can just jog on tout suite.

I rather like the Scottish spelling of "privilege". More gutsy than the effete English.

Priviledges can be precarious things to stand on....

Fysics_Teacher

IanB2 said:

According to CNN 1 million people in the UK have quit smoking during the pandemic.

No wonder the treasury is worried!

Foxy

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

It is a bit weird though if their vote is declining significantly in these seats that they continue to have such healthy shares overall.

Where are these votes coming from? Are they coming from former Tories in the south? If so, then does that make the boundary review important again?

And, most pertinently, if these seats have Tory vote losses out of line with the national poll totals, where are the seats where the Tories are doing better to balance overall with their apparent national lead?

If they are not gaining in the Purple Wall seats, then they could either be building votes in safe Labour seats or safe Tory ones, or possibly in other marginals. I expect it would be in the safe Tory ones, the @Big_G_NorthWales of this world, where loyalty defeats disquiet.

Malmesbury

NHS England Hospital numbers out

Headline - 19 - lowest weekday since March
Seven days - 17
Yesterday - 3

As ever, the last 3-5 days are subject to revision. Last 5 days are included for completeness.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283748511981481985

williamglenn

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

It's a squirrel because the bigger issue is Brexit.

A double squirrel. Interesting. Perhaps Lewis is a team player after all?

You're missing the point. Before the election, the government declined to publish the report into Russian interference in UK politics, and particularly the referendum, so it's a bit rich for them to now try to distract from it by saying Russia interfered in that very election.

They are trying to distract from the report about Russian interference in elections by talking about Russian interference in elections?

It's called muddying the waters.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748525780676608

Theuniondivvie

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

Is this one of those times when the lefties and the righties come together to say look how biased the BBC is?

I'm only talking about Laura, I wasn't aware that she was the living, breathing embodiment of the BBC.

CarlottaVance

FPT:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/nickeardleybbc/status/1283732086675963904

The Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee has been briefed on the details of this incident.

That must have been fun - assuming they briefed the right one.....

FF43

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

How is it a squirrel? It's the subject of the report!

It's a squirrel because the bigger issue is Brexit.

I think the government is definitely worried* by the contents of the Russia report. They are therefore getting relatively harmless to them info out ahead of potentially more damaging allegations release by the Select Committee.

* I don't know whether they should be worried, but they clearly are.

RochdalePioneers

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

ydoethur said:

It is a bit weird though if their vote is declining significantly in these seats that they continue to have such healthy shares overall.

Where are these votes coming from? Are they coming from former Tories in the south? If so, then does that make the boundary review important again?

And, most pertinently, if these seats have Tory vote losses out of line with the national poll totals, where are the seats where the Tories are doing better to balance overall with their apparent national lead?

If they are not gaining in the Purple Wall seats, then they could either be building votes in safe Labour seats or safe Tory ones, or possibly in other marginals. I expect it would be in the safe Tory ones, the @Big_G_NorthWales of this world, where loyalty defeats disquiet.

Yes. The problem with national vote tallies is that it isn't the same as seats. Piling votes up in safe seats makes for a lift in the national total but nothing for the goal of winning as many seats as possible.

TOPPING

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748912944291840

TOPPING

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

Is this one of those times when the lefties and the righties come together to say look how biased the BBC is?

I'm only talking about Laura, I wasn't aware that she was the living, breathing embodiment of the BBC.

Ah good point "Political Editor of the BBC" I agree has scant connection to "The BBC"

Scott_xP

https://twitter.com/JoeMurphyLondon/status/1283749586952237056

LadyG

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748525780676608

This is quite scary now. And it is everywhere.

eg I am sure China and Russia have hijacked the BLM cause, on both sides, via social media, to sow racial discord in the US (and elsewhere). It's an obvious move, exploiting the weakness of an enemy - in this case America's poisonous racial divide, and legacy of liberal guilt.

Highly effective.

You can actually see it happening in real time. Recently created accounts (with names like Wotsit79203859) randomly appear and stoke-up arguments on Twitter, making them go viral.

FF43

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748912944291840

You mean Dom Cummings might be a "Russian actor"?

LadyG

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She was a child, yet we are happy to arrest a 12 year old for racist tweets?

Theuniondivvie

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

Is this one of those times when the lefties and the righties come together to say look how biased the BBC is?

I'm only talking about Laura, I wasn't aware that she was the living, breathing embodiment of the BBC.

Ah good point "Political Editor of the BBC" I agree has scant connection to "The BBC"

On that basis I'll take it Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, represents every Conservative in the UK.

I can't remember, did you end up voting for someone else in the GE or did you come to some grubby personal accommodation?

Foxy

LadyG said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748525780676608

This is quite scary now. And it is everywhere.

eg I am sure China and Russia have hijacked the BLM cause, on both sides, via social media, to sow racial discord in the US (and elsewhere). It's an obvious move, exploiting the weakness of an enemy - in this case America's poisonous racial divide, and legacy of liberal guilt.

Highly effective.

You can actually see it happening in real time. Recently created accounts (with names like Wotsit79203859) randomly appear and stoke-up arguments on Twitter, making them go viral.

Yes, so best not to stoke up Culture wars that are really only the obsession of a few extremists on either side.

Luckyguy1983

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.

LadyG

Foxy said:

LadyG said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748525780676608

This is quite scary now. And it is everywhere.

eg I am sure China and Russia have hijacked the BLM cause, on both sides, via social media, to sow racial discord in the US (and elsewhere). It's an obvious move, exploiting the weakness of an enemy - in this case America's poisonous racial divide, and legacy of liberal guilt.

Highly effective.

You can actually see it happening in real time. Recently created accounts (with names like Wotsit79203859) randomly appear and stoke-up arguments on Twitter, making them go viral.

Yes, so best not to stoke up Culture wars that are really only the obsession of a few extremists on either side.

Bit late now.

Interesting mention of this exact technique in that Standard article:

"But when they [leaks online of trade talks] did not gain traction, Russian “actors” are then said to have sought to push them on Twitter posts, blogs, and single-use burner accounts on social media."

ydoethur

I always knew England should have stuck with Denly *innocent face*

Foxy

looking at the recorded adverse effects in the Moderna trial, they seem to be a dose response fever. That may be uncomfortable, but perhaps is evidence of activity, by getting a brisker reaction.

The phase 3 studies are what we need, as well as aftermarket surveillance, which is the way rarer side effects get picked up.

TOPPING

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

Is this one of those times when the lefties and the righties come together to say look how biased the BBC is?

I'm only talking about Laura, I wasn't aware that she was the living, breathing embodiment of the BBC.

Ah good point "Political Editor of the BBC" I agree has scant connection to "The BBC"

On that basis I'll take it Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, represents every Conservative in the UK.

I can't remember, did you end up voting for someone else in the GE or did you come to some grubby personal accommodation?

You are trying, not so subtly, to shift the terms of the discussion.

Boris Johnson represents the Conservative Party.

In the same terms it is no stretch to say that Laura Kuenssberg represents the BBC (or does she append a "these views do not represent..." line in her tweets?)

And as for who I voted for, I voted happily for the Conservatives, given the choice I was presented with.

TOPPING

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She was a child, yet we are happy to arrest a 12 year old for racist tweets?

Slight non-sequitur all over the place pile of bollocks post.

LadyG

It occurs to me that I might actually be a Russian bot myself.

We are an algorithm!

A curious insight.

algarkirk

Tres said:

Talking about what Westminster can and can't do legally misses the point.

Queen Elizabeth took a royal oath to govern according to our laws and customs at her coronation. She even chose to swear an extra special oath for Scotland in 1952 before her coronation because we (the Scots) are so special as she ain't the head of our church.

So these oaths Queenie swore preserve the rights and priviledges of the Scottish Crown as endorsed at the time of Queen Anne. These rights inlcude the principles asserted since the Declaration of Arbroath that the noble and common people of Scotland believe in a single kingdom and possess the freedom to select a king who will protect these rights and priviledges.

So if she and her servant Johnson choose to break these oaths, she can just jog on tout suite.

I wish this argument the best of luck.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1283725468768899072?s=20

TOPPING

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.

So every unrepentant prisoner should be banged up beyond their allotted term?

And the answer to your concern was provided by @OnlyLivingBoy who said she should and perhaps would have been sent on a deradicalisation programme so she could stop doing all those nasty things.

LadyG

Maybe all of the world is now just a simulation, inside a computer in a lab in Novosibirsk.

A computer which itself does not exist, outside the mind of a Chinese teenager.

OldKingCole

ydoethur said:

I always knew England should have stuck with Denly *innocent face*

It's surprising that the England team has no room for a player from the champion county.
Time for Lawrence.

Chelyabinsk

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

DeClare

Are they still proposing to reduce the number of MPs when the boundary changes come in?

LadyG

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She was a child, yet we are happy to arrest a 12 year old for racist tweets?

Slight non-sequitur all over the place pile of bollocks post.

But true, nonetheless. If a 12 year old can be held criminally responsible for social media posts, a 15 year old can be held responsible for actually aiding and abetting terrorism.

To my mind, she should have been tried by the Syrians, in Syria, as that's where she did her *alleged* crimes, and it is the Syrians who suffered, not us.

Foxy

Interesting thread on the Leicester situation:

https://twitter.com/CovidLeics/status/1283465193029357568?s=09

Cases very much focused in certain neighbourhoods and quite low positivity rates.

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283703342598893568?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283703347049095170?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283703351675359233?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283703355139928065?s=20

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1283703357962682370?s=20

LadyG

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

She really is quite poisonous, isn't she?

If she is released or acquitted on the grounds of being a sweet, innocent little thing, so cruelly groomed against her will, the government will never hear the last of it.

Mexicanpete

squareroot2 said:

IF... IF.... IF... IF... IF...

Oh no! Mike has panicked the fanboys.

Don't worry, no need to panic until 2024, when it might be brutal, after post Covid economic armageddon.

eek

Luckyguy1983 said:

If my post was 'she deserves to face justice, preferably the noose', then yes, the fact that her actions happened when she was 15 would be pertinent. But my point was about the safety of the public. Unless someone radicalised when young is less of an ongoing threat than someone radicalised when an adult, her age has no bearing at all.

My viewpoint is that she was born in the UK and radicalised in the UK so it's our own screw up that we need to take responsibility for and fix..

Trying to throw the problem at Bangladesh was neither fair or moral..

logical_song

"More troubling poll results for President Trump"
https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/more-troubling-poll-results-for-president-trump-87801413571

TOPPING

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.

Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.

TOPPING

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She was a child, yet we are happy to arrest a 12 year old for racist tweets?

Slight non-sequitur all over the place pile of bollocks post.

But true, nonetheless. If a 12 year old can be held criminally responsible for social media posts, a 15 year old can be held responsible for actually aiding and abetting terrorism.

To my mind, she should have been tried by the Syrians, in Syria, as that's where she did her *alleged* crimes, and it is the Syrians who suffered, not us.

She has been given leave to appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship. If it is restored then no doubt the appropriate sanction given she was a child when she committed the offences can be applied.

Theuniondivvie

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

Is this one of those times when the lefties and the righties come together to say look how biased the BBC is?

I'm only talking about Laura, I wasn't aware that she was the living, breathing embodiment of the BBC.

Ah good point "Political Editor of the BBC" I agree has scant connection to "The BBC"

On that basis I'll take it Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, represents every Conservative in the UK.

I can't remember, did you end up voting for someone else in the GE or did you come to some grubby personal accommodation?

You are trying, not so subtly, to shift the terms of the discussion.

Boris Johnson represents the Conservative Party.

In the same terms it is no stretch to say that Laura Kuenssberg represents the BBC (or does she append a "these views do not represent..." line in her tweets?)

And as for who I voted for, I voted happily for the Conservatives, given the choice I was presented with.

Okeydokes, in Topping world individuals should not be criticised for fear of it being interpreted as criticism of the institutions to which they belong.

In not particularly nuanced Divvie world, I'm happy to distinguish between criticism of BJ, criticism of the government of all the pricks which he heads, the Conservative party and Conservatives in general. Mental, eh?!

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

LadyG said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748525780676608

This is quite scary now. And it is everywhere.

eg I am sure China and Russia have hijacked the BLM cause, on both sides, via social media, to sow racial discord in the US (and elsewhere). It's an obvious move, exploiting the weakness of an enemy - in this case America's poisonous racial divide, and legacy of liberal guilt.

Highly effective.

You can actually see it happening in real time. Recently created accounts (with names like Wotsit79203859) randomly appear and stoke-up arguments on Twitter, making them go viral.

Yes, so best not to stoke up Culture wars that are really only the obsession of a few extremists on either side.

BLM and Bernie Sanders were pushed by Russian bots on Facebook etc for the last US election. Seemed to be an attempt to tar Hillary/Democrats with "extremist" views to incite Trumpian voters , IIRC.

Chelyabinsk

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

Indeed it is - like Usman Khan.

nichomar

Pulpstar said:

Looking at the latest Opinium (A favourable pollster for Labour recently) it seems the following are true:

i) Starmer is a big positive for Labour
ii) Johnson is a drag for the Tories.
iii) Sunak is miles and miles and miles ahead of Dodds, and likely ahead of Starmer too.
iv) The Tory brand/party is better than Labour still.

If Johnson gets replaced by Sunak before the next election it'll be an absolute walk in the park for the Tories.

There will be a significant number of natural tories who won’t be able to vote for an Asian with a funny name. In any multi member ward in local elections For leafy urban suburbs or country Seats the perceived ethnic minority often takes last place in votes for the Tory slate, as happens with similar candidates of other parties.

Nigelb

Another transatlantic row whose turbulence might be damaging to us...

EU court ruling strikes blow to transatlantic data flows
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/16/eu-court-us-surveillance-data-privacy-365796
...Europe's top court handed down a searing verdict on U.S. surveillance powers on Thursday, ruling for the second time that EU data would not be safe from snooping under a transatlantic data protection deal.

The ruling, which cancels the Privacy Shield agreement, throws billions of dollars in digital trade into legal limbo and reignites a spat over surveillance that dates back more than five years to U.S. whistleblower Edward Snowden's revelations about American spying....

We will probably have to jump one way or the other ?

LadyG

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.

Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.

Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.

Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.

Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.

TOPPING

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Never one to be distracted by a squirrel, Laura once again burnishes her reputation for sticking it to the government man.

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1283733966709821442?s=20

Is this one of those times when the lefties and the righties come together to say look how biased the BBC is?

I'm only talking about Laura, I wasn't aware that she was the living, breathing embodiment of the BBC.

Ah good point "Political Editor of the BBC" I agree has scant connection to "The BBC"

On that basis I'll take it Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party, represents every Conservative in the UK.

I can't remember, did you end up voting for someone else in the GE or did you come to some grubby personal accommodation?

You are trying, not so subtly, to shift the terms of the discussion.

Boris Johnson represents the Conservative Party.

In the same terms it is no stretch to say that Laura Kuenssberg represents the BBC (or does she append a "these views do not represent..." line in her tweets?)

And as for who I voted for, I voted happily for the Conservatives, given the choice I was presented with.

Okeydokes, in Topping world individuals should not be criticised for fear of it being interpreted as criticism of the institutions to which they belong.

In not particularly nuanced Divvie world, I'm happy to distinguish between criticism of BJ, criticism of the government of all the pricks which he heads, the Conservative party and Conservatives in general. Mental, eh?!

"Mental, eh?!"

Er, no, not "mental".

Laura represents the BBC as Boris represents the Conservative Party. I'm happy to go with that. There's probably a porter at the BBC who disagrees with Laura and there's me who disagrees with a lot of what Boris says. But I have no problem with you putting me in the basket of Conservatives that Boris represents.

Malmesbury

Foxy said:

Interesting thread on the Leicester situation:

https://twitter.com/CovidLeics/status/1283465193029357568?s=09

Cases very much focused in certain neighbourhoods and quite low positivity rates.

Very good information - good catch

Looks like the authorities went in heavy, and quite early in the spike. The map seems to explain the wide area of the lockdown.

LadyG

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She was a child, yet we are happy to arrest a 12 year old for racist tweets?

Slight non-sequitur all over the place pile of bollocks post.

But true, nonetheless. If a 12 year old can be held criminally responsible for social media posts, a 15 year old can be held responsible for actually aiding and abetting terrorism.

To my mind, she should have been tried by the Syrians, in Syria, as that's where she did her *alleged* crimes, and it is the Syrians who suffered, not us.

She has been given leave to appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship. If it is restored then no doubt the appropriate sanction given she was a child when she committed the offences can be applied.

Yes, and quite right too. Even unpleasant people must get the protection of the law. I will, however, be unhappy if she is given a slap on the wrist and three weeks deradicalisation holiday in Weston super Mare.

On a practical note, I wonder if she could ever lead a "normal" life in Britain, anyway. She is notorious and reviled. Her face is widely known. She'd basically have to change her identity and live in hiding. Miserable.

She;d be better off making a life in a Muslim country, if she could find one to take her in.

TOPPING

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

Indeed it is - like Usman Khan.

Yes good point. What shall we do, though? Prison no key? Kill them?

What's your plan?

Are we really having this discussion again? The only thing we can do to combat Islamic extremism is to illustrate that our way of life, our morals, our philosophy is one which is superior to theirs.

Very frustrating for people who just want to blast away, literally, at the problem, but that ain't how this problem is going to be solved.

HYUFD

Pulpstar said:

Looking at the latest Opinium (A favourable pollster for Labour recently) it seems the following are true:

i) Starmer is a big positive for Labour
ii) Johnson is a drag for the Tories.
iii) Sunak is miles and miles and miles ahead of Dodds, and likely ahead of Starmer too.
iv) The Tory brand/party is better than Labour still.

If Johnson gets replaced by Sunak before the next election it'll be an absolute walk in the park for the Tories.

Not if you look at the Redfield breakdown, with them Tory voters prefer Boris to Starmer by more than they prefer Sunak to Starmer.

More Labour voters prefer Boris to Starmer than prefer Sunak to Starmer, only LD voters prefer Sunak to Starmer by more than they prefer Boris to Starmer
https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-uk-voting-intention-8-july/

StuartDickson

So, Scottish sub-samples are ok now?

Malmesbury

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She was a child, yet we are happy to arrest a 12 year old for racist tweets?

Slight non-sequitur all over the place pile of bollocks post.

But true, nonetheless. If a 12 year old can be held criminally responsible for social media posts, a 15 year old can be held responsible for actually aiding and abetting terrorism.

To my mind, she should have been tried by the Syrians, in Syria, as that's where she did her *alleged* crimes, and it is the Syrians who suffered, not us.

She has been given leave to appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship. If it is restored then no doubt the appropriate sanction given she was a child when she committed the offences can be applied.

It maybe of interest to note that because of her... confused national status... the anti-ISIS groups have deliberately left her alone.

Many others of a similar background got drum-head court martials.

TOPPING

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.

Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.

Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.

Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.

Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.

Well aside from the fact that we are not sure what crimes she committed (I have no doubt some will be found) when she was a child (< 18, according to the UN), there is no reason not to hold her to account.

She has been granted leave to appeal against the decision to strip her of her citizenship, which, I'm sure it will be argued, leaves her stateless.

Malmesbury

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

Indeed it is - like Usman Khan.

Yes good point. What shall we do, though? Prison no key? Kill them?

What's your plan?

Are we really having this discussion again? The only thing we can do to combat Islamic extremism is to illustrate that our way of life, our morals, our philosophy is one which is superior to theirs.

Very frustrating for people who just want to blast away, literally, at the problem, but that ain't how this problem is going to be solved.

All true. I would try her for war crimes - she was involved in the enslavement of Yazidi women, for example.

I have been told human rights enthusiasts, that that is "not ethical". Not sure why?

LadyG

Malmesbury said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

FPT

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

TOPPING said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

Scott_xP said:

https://twitter.com/rosskempsell/status/1283696961330335746

Can she claim political asylum when she gets here?

And if her appeal fails, will she immediately be deported?

I’m more exercised as to whether she will be arrested under the Terrorism Act if she returns.

Because if she isn’t a British subject (a citizen since the Bliar rewrote the English language) she is unlikely to be a target of its key provisions. But if she is, then she is.

I wonder if whoever is funding her lawyers has thought it through to that end.

Fuck's sake she is a child.

A child who has lost three children. Whatever it is she has done or not done, her treatment by the government has been an utter embarrassment. Bring her back, charge her for a crime if there's a case to answer, let her get on with her life if not. Stop wasting taxpayers' money pretending she is a citizen of Bangladesh, a country she has never even been to and which won't give her a passport even if she asked for one, and don't foist her on Syria, a country that surely has enough problems of its own.

Do we know that Syria would regard it as a foisting? These people committed their terrorist crimes against the Syrian people. It would make some sense to face justice there.

I believe I read that the Syrians want rid of her, but I am willing to be corrected. In general, I am in favour of the British government defending the rights of its citizens abroad, especially those who have been groomed as children by violent extremists and sexual predators. I am surprised that is a controversial position.

I quite agree, but I am not sure the rights of its citizens abroad should extend to joining a terrorist organisation and attempting to overthrow the Government of the destination country. Perhaps in the days of Palmerston and 'civis romanus sum (sp?)' but not now.

I believe the Syrian view is that her role is too minor for them to bother with. If the government hadn't been so intent on wasting our money on this she could have been back home by now, hopefully deradicalised and rebuilding her life. Her experience has been so awful I would have thought she could have made an excellent counter-extremism resource (ie don't do what I did) if the government hadn't been so thick about it. Telling all Bangladeshi heritage young Britons that they're not really British citizens, on the other hand, seems like the wrong way to go about it.

Is 'hopefully deradicalised' an appropriate badge welcome people back to our streets? Do our bomb disposal teams give a clean bill of health to 'hopefully diffused' dangerous devices?

As for your second point, I don't think that is the message, the message would be 'go and fight for an ISIS caliphate and you won't be a British citizen' - you may see that as a negative message, but I am not sure how many would agree.

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She was a child, yet we are happy to arrest a 12 year old for racist tweets?

Slight non-sequitur all over the place pile of bollocks post.

But true, nonetheless. If a 12 year old can be held criminally responsible for social media posts, a 15 year old can be held responsible for actually aiding and abetting terrorism.

To my mind, she should have been tried by the Syrians, in Syria, as that's where she did her *alleged* crimes, and it is the Syrians who suffered, not us.

She has been given leave to appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship. If it is restored then no doubt the appropriate sanction given she was a child when she committed the offences can be applied.

It maybe of interest to note that because of her... confused national status... the anti-ISIS groups have deliberately left her alone.

Many others of a similar background got drum-head court martials.

Yes. The Iraqis briskly execute ISIS brides. She is lucky she ended up on the Syrian side of the border

https://www.institutkurde.org/info/a-10-minute-trial-a-death-sentence-iraqi-justice-for-isis-suspects-1232551366

Mexicanpete

StuartDickson said:

So, Scottish sub-samples are ok now?

Dangerous territory!

LadyG

TOPPING said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.

Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.

Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.

Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.

Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.

Well aside from the fact that we are not sure what crimes she committed (I have no doubt some will be found) when she was a child (< 18, according to the UN), there is no reason not to hold her to account.

She has been granted leave to appeal against the decision to strip her of her citizenship, which, I'm sure it will be argued, leaves her stateless.

Not sure what crimes she committed? She is an open and avowed supporter of an illegal terrorist organisation, and she has admitted sewing suicide vests for ISIS killers.

This is not seriously disputed.

Theuniondivvie

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.

Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.

Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.

Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.

Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.

Think of all the trouble that might have been avoided if AH had been 'deradicalised' by being accepted by the Akademie der bildenden Künste Wien, hooking up with a nice Jewish lass and being shown a bit of kindness.

Brom

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1283725468768899072?s=20

33% to rejoin? Looks like we're going to be out for a long time to come.

LadyG

Theuniondivvie said:

LadyG said:

TOPPING said:

Chelyabinsk said:

TOPPING said:

She was a child. If you reframe everything you say in that context then it turns out that your post was a load of bollocks.

She doesn't seem to have changed her mind as an adult.

"Was there a point when you started to have second thoughts about your life under Islamic State? Only at the end, after my son died. I realised I had to get out for the sake of my children - for the sake of my daughter and my baby. Yeah.

Only at the end? Yeah.

You didn't have any regrets up until that point? No.

What was it about Islamic State that attracted you? What did you like about it? The way they showed that you can go [to Syria] and they'll take care of you. You can have your own family, do anything. You're living under Islamic law.

Did you know what Islamic State were doing when you left for Syria? Because they had beheaded people. There were executions. Yeah, I knew about those things and I was okay with it. Because, you know, I started becoming religious just before I left. From what I heard, Islamically that is all allowed. So I was okay with it.

You didn't question that? No, not at all."

"The head of the intelligence services in the UK says people like you are potentially very dangerous. What would you say to him? They don't have any evidence against me doing anything dangerous."

"Do you feel that you have made a mistake? When you look back at what you've been through over the last four years, do you feel like you've made a mistake? A mistake in going to al-Dawla?

Yes, a mistake in coming here, living under Islamic State. In a way, yes, but I don't regret it because it's changed me as a person. It's made me stronger, tougher. I married my husband. I wouldn't have found someone like him back in the UK. I had my kids. I did have a good time there, it's just that at the end things got harder and I couldn't take it anymore. I had to leave."

Please for god's sake keep this to yourself, but a deradicalisation programme is designed for people who have been radicalised.

See how that works? The child was radicalised, and, from your post, may remain radicalised, and hence everything she says is all part of the deal of radicalisation. As a child. And she was, as I understand it, rendered stateless by the Home Secretary which is the basis of the challenge.

Is it any clearer now? Please don't hesitate to ask if so. You know the only stupid question is an unasked one.

Hitler likely became a monster because of his brutal father, who beat him mercilessly. Hitler was a child at the time, and had no choice in the matter.

Yet we still held, and would hold, Hitler responsible for the crimes he committed as an adult.

Why is Begum different? We are all formed by positive or negative influences in childhood.

Think of all the trouble that might have been avoided if AH had been 'deradicalised' by being accepted by the Akademie der bildenden Künste Wien, hooking up with a nice Jewish lass and being shown a bit of kindness.

That is probably and actually true. Hitler was a mad incel with a thwarted and very modest artistic talent. A nice bunk up and a few paintings sold..... World War 2 avoided.