"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.
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?
In which case she will argue her case. And her age, and the fact that when she went to join ISIS she was a schoolgirl, will or should be taken into account.
"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.
We hold children responsible for the crimes they commit in proportion to the expectation we have of awareness that these things are crimes & the responsibility the child has for enacting them. Hence Begum should be tried in the UK for the crimes she committed as an adult.
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
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.
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.
Maybe the tabloids should avoid whipping up hatred against her then, since they are only adding to the costs of rehabilitating her. No other country will take her in, for the same reasons we don't want to. In fact, any muslim-majority country has much more to fear from IS than we do. They don't have to take her, because she's not one of their citizens. We do, because she is British. This idea that we can just foist our problems on other people is bizarre. While she is here she can face whatever legal proceedings she is due. This farce has gone on long enough.
OT - Trumpsky replaces Brad Parscale as his campagn "manager" with Bill Stepien, former Chris Christie fixer and IIRC the mastermind behind the former New Jersey's Governor's infamous "Bridgegate" scandal.
Let's hope Stepien can again work his magic - by building Trumpsky a bridge to nowhere just like he did for that failed lardball Christie.
"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.
We hold children responsible for the crimes they commit in proportion to the expectation we have of awareness that these things are crimes & the responsibility the child has for enacting them. Hence Begum should be tried in the UK for the crimes she committed as an adult.
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
I don't argue with much of that. However I would let the Syrians try her (if they wish). And if they have the death penalty, so be it. She committed her crimes against Syrians, in Syria (including sexual slavery, and enabling murder).
It is the right of the Syrians to judge her, and it is their right to apply Syrian law and Syrian punishment. Moreover, she is in Syria now. It's not like they are trying to extradite her from north Luton.
I'm curious as to why Putin's henchmen would want to hack into vaccine trial data. One plausible motive is a really sinister one: that they were looking for some issues which they could then twist into social-media anti-vaxx propaganda. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right.
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.
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.
Maybe the tabloids should avoid whipping up hatred against her then, since they are only adding to the costs of rehabilitating her. No other country will take her in, for the same reasons we don't want to. In fact, any muslim-majority country has much more to fear from IS than we do. They don't have to take her, because she's not one of their citizens. We do, because she is British. This idea that we can just foist our problems on other people is bizarre. While she is here she can face whatever legal proceedings she is due. This farce has gone on long enough.
I'm curious as to why Putin's henchmen would want to hack into vaccine trial data. One plausible motive is a really sinister one: that they were looking for some issues which they could then twist into social-media anti-vaxx propaganda. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right.
I am sure you are right.
Like the BLM agitation, I have seen suspicious anti-vaxx sentiment on Twitter
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.
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.
Maybe the tabloids should avoid whipping up hatred against her then, since they are only adding to the costs of rehabilitating her. No other country will take her in, for the same reasons we don't want to. In fact, any muslim-majority country has much more to fear from IS than we do. They don't have to take her, because she's not one of their citizens. We do, because she is British. This idea that we can just foist our problems on other people is bizarre. While she is here she can face whatever legal proceedings she is due. This farce has gone on long enough.
As I've already said, she was radicalised when in the UK, she is our responsibility and it is our countries moral obligation to deal with it - we cannot expect another country to take on our mistakes...
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.
Leicester City Council wants 90% of the city released at the press conference. Note the figures in the map are only to the 4th July, and there has been a downward trend since.
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.
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.
Maybe the tabloids should avoid whipping up hatred against her then, since they are only adding to the costs of rehabilitating her. No other country will take her in, for the same reasons we don't want to. In fact, any muslim-majority country has much more to fear from IS than we do. They don't have to take her, because she's not one of their citizens. We do, because she is British. This idea that we can just foist our problems on other people is bizarre. While she is here she can face whatever legal proceedings she is due. This farce has gone on long enough.
The newspapers can report the news as they see it, within the law. Just as you want to apply the law to her. They are not going to stop reporting a juicy story like this.
The best answer, as I've said below, is to let the Syrians judge her and punish her, if they want.
This would be the same Peter Kellner who I remember touring the US news networks during the EU referendum telling people pretty unequivocally Remain would win.
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.
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.
Maybe the tabloids should avoid whipping up hatred against her then, since they are only adding to the costs of rehabilitating her. No other country will take her in, for the same reasons we don't want to. In fact, any muslim-majority country has much more to fear from IS than we do. They don't have to take her, because she's not one of their citizens. We do, because she is British. This idea that we can just foist our problems on other people is bizarre. While she is here she can face whatever legal proceedings she is due. This farce has gone on long enough.
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.
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.
Maybe the tabloids should avoid whipping up hatred against her then, since they are only adding to the costs of rehabilitating her. No other country will take her in, for the same reasons we don't want to. In fact, any muslim-majority country has much more to fear from IS than we do. They don't have to take her, because she's not one of their citizens. We do, because she is British. This idea that we can just foist our problems on other people is bizarre. While she is here she can face whatever legal proceedings she is due. This farce has gone on long enough.
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.
Leicester City Council wants 90% of the city released at the press conference. Note the figures in the map are only to the 4th July, and there has been a downward trend since.
Relatedly, perhaps, the recent outbreak in Melbourne has been linked to an Islamic school (and Eid parties) along with an abattoir
The alarming rise in Covid in the Middle East does suggest Eid was an issue. Saudi Arabia has an under-reported problem: 250,000 cases and they are surging.
Meanwhile it is nightclubs in Korea and bars in Florida. It's like the virus attacks the culture.
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.
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.
Yes, he did, hence his 'Hopefully deradicalised' - a phrase so miserably apt as a description of the UK's deradicalisation programme that it should be its motto. Do you have confidence in it working?
Nope but it would have meant people were 1) more aware of it 2) aware of some of the tactics that Russia had used in past 3) it wouldn't scream cover up when it's pointed out that the result Russia was (probably) aiming for was a Tory party win (to break up the EU)..
Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852v1 ...The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label, platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We report the preliminary results for the comparison of hydroxychloroquine vs. usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: 1561 patients randomly allocated to receive hydroxychloroquine were compared with 3155 patients concurrently allocated to usual care. Overall, 418 (26.8%) patients allocated hydroxychloroquine and 788 (25.0%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.23; P=0.18). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to hydroxychloroquine were less likely to be discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (60.3% vs. 62.8%; rate ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99) and those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline were more likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (29.8% vs. 26.5%; risk ratio 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25). There was no excess of new major cardiac arrhythmia. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.
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.
The time series implies that it might be a bit more interesting than that. Looking at the graph of everything, I reckon there have been three stages:
Between January and April, Conservatives gaining mainly from Lib Dems. Winners bounce and rally round the flag in a crisis.
Then in May and June, a clear move from Conservatives to Labour. Starmer effect. Definitely not Dom, because nobody cares about Dom.
Since then, a bit of a drift back to the Conservatives.
The net effect of that might leave the Conservatives only slightly down, but with a more efficiently arranged opposition. Remember that the Conservative percentage vote between 1979 and 1992 barely shifted, and that gave everything from a landslide twice the size of BoJo's to a narrow squeak.
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.
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.
Yes, he did, hence his 'Hopefully deradicalised' - a phrase so miserably apt as a description of the UK's deradicalisation programme that it should be its motto. Do you have confidence in it working?
I have more confidence that it will work if it is tried than if it isn't.
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.
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.
Yes, he did, hence his 'Hopefully deradicalised' - a phrase so miserably apt as a description of the UK's deradicalisation programme that it should be its motto. Do you have confidence in it working?
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.
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.
Yes, he did, hence his 'Hopefully deradicalised' - a phrase so miserably apt as a description of the UK's deradicalisation programme that it should be its motto. Do you have confidence in it working?
Not a very great deal but what's the alternative?
Life imprisonment somewhere where the rent is low.
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.
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.
Yes, he did, hence his 'Hopefully deradicalised' - a phrase so miserably apt as a description of the UK's deradicalisation programme that it should be its motto. Do you have confidence in it working?
Not a very great deal but what's the alternative?
Life imprisonment somewhere where the rent is low.
You can't have a rest without coming back to some new political story and now we have a joint accusation by UK, US and Canada on Russian hacking and interference in UK elections
Every day another controversy and more angst
I have no idea how all this pans out politically or economically and to be fair neither does anyone else
What's this Trump-Goya thing? Have I missed some vital element of the story or is the POTUS literally hooring himself on behalf of canned food in the Oval Office?
Interesting piece in Economist on state of journalism and the demise of objectivity as a... well an objective. Commercial pressures also suggest a shift will continue.
Tricky subject, but I do agree strongly with the idea that if politician X is lying, we should call it that. To do otherwise, for fear of looking unobjective, is to be unobjective.
"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.
We hold children responsible for the crimes they commit in proportion to the expectation we have of awareness that these things are crimes & the responsibility the child has for enacting them. Hence Begum should be tried in the UK for the crimes she committed as an adult.
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
I don't argue with much of that. However I would let the Syrians try her (if they wish). And if they have the death penalty, so be it. She committed her crimes against Syrians, in Syria (including sexual slavery, and enabling murder).
It is the right of the Syrians to judge her, and it is their right to apply Syrian law and Syrian punishment. Moreover, she is in Syria now. It's not like they are trying to extradite her from north Luton.
I tend to agree. She would certainly be sentenced to death - membership of ISIS is punishable by death there, probably unsurprisingly. Prisons full of ISIS members awaiting escape, rescue, or bombing of the prison to pour out wouldn't be a sensible policy.
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.
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.
Yes, he did, hence his 'Hopefully deradicalised' - a phrase so miserably apt as a description of the UK's deradicalisation programme that it should be its motto. Do you have confidence in it working?
Not a very great deal but what's the alternative?
Life imprisonment somewhere where the rent is low.
What's this Trump-Goya thing? Have I missed some vital element of the story or is the POTUS literally hooring himself on behalf of canned food in the Oval Office?
That's about the size of it.
The CEO said he was Trump fan, so people are boycotting the company.
Trump is now trying to persuade racist white dudes to buy Mexican food...
See from the press that La Maxwell still has one defender - Geraldo Rivera!
Does anyone know in which salt mine His Foul Lowness is currently secreting his bloated, rotting carcass? Want to give the address to Geraldo so he can do another of his famous scoops!
You can't have a rest without coming back to some new political story and now we have a joint accusation by UK, US and Canada on Russian hacking and interference in UK elections
Every day another controversy and more angst
I have no idea how all this pans out politically or economically and to be fair neither does anyone else
The Russian elite had no problem using a nerve agent at large in the UK. Who would be surprised at them hacking the state and making mischief with what they found?
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.
Leicester City Council wants 90% of the city released at the press conference. Note the figures in the map are only to the 4th July, and there has been a downward trend since.
The counter argument is to wait a bit long to make sure.
The numbers are falling, but only for a few days of reliable data.
I understand they want the focus the areas of the lock down. But then you get hit with the "Community Cohesion" argument.....
You can't have a rest without coming back to some new political story and now we have a joint accusation by UK, US and Canada on Russian hacking and interference in UK elections
Every day another controversy and more angst
I have no idea how all this pans out politically or economically and to be fair neither does anyone else
The Russian elite had no problem using a nerve agent at large in the UK. Who would be surprised at them hacking the state and making mischief with what they found?
I am not surprised to be fair, indeed a new daily controversy seems the norm
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.
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.
Yes, he did, hence his 'Hopefully deradicalised' - a phrase so miserably apt as a description of the UK's deradicalisation programme that it should be its motto. Do you have confidence in it working?
Not a very great deal but what's the alternative?
One problem is that we have to depend on the judgement of those running the programs
The interesting tale of how no-one can remember who got permission for Usman Khan to break the conditions of his release does not inspire confidence.
You can't have a rest without coming back to some new political story and now we have a joint accusation by UK, US and Canada on Russian hacking and interference in UK elections
Every day another controversy and more angst
I have no idea how all this pans out politically or economically and to be fair neither does anyone else
The Russian elite had no problem using a nerve agent at large in the UK. Who would be surprised at them hacking the state and making mischief with what they found?
The Russian state has been assassinating it's citizens aboard since 1920.
Being surprised it happening after the first century seems... surprising...
Dura Ace gave me the solution as it was the same problem for me
Not sure I'm keen on the use of toilet paper for glasses drying in that video. I've heard about soap but apparently that can take off any anti-glare or similar on the lenses.
Dura Ace gave me the solution as it was the same problem for me
Not sure I'm keen on the use of toilet paper for glasses drying in that video. I've heard about soap but apparently that can take off any anti-glare or similar on the lenses.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
I have spoken to President Putin, and I looked him in the eye and he has assured me it is not true. I therefore consider the matter closed.
I'm surprised they didn't just ask. If there were vital information pertaining to the development of a successful vaccine, I'm pretty sure we would give it to them.
Can you imagine having to work with these truth twisters?
Disgrace. Truth and Boris Johnson are never knowingly in the same room together and this negative attribute inevitably permeates his government. The fish rots from the head and this fish is rotting from the head. The stench of mendacity - which is very similar to rotting fish - is everywhere and overpowering. No mask is thick enough for protection. And we have 4 more years of this to endure. Plus a pandemic, plus a deep recession, and plus the utter waste of time and energy and money that is Brexit. Woe is me. Woe is us.
I have spoken to President Putin, and I looked him in the eye and he has assured me it is not true. I therefore consider the matter closed.
I'm surprised they didn't just ask. If there were vital information pertaining to the development of a successful vaccine, I'm pretty sure we would give it to them.
One problem is that dictatorial regimes have structural problems which prevent them understanding anything altruistic, or soft power (even).
There were some hilarious accounts of the KGB hunting for the reasons why the West was doing something for country X, when it wasn't in the immediate interests of the Western country in question.
IIRC the plan is (at least for the Oxford vaccine), to freely provide all the data.
Looking at the Leicester figures if it was up to me I'd keep the lockdown a few days more to squish this before lifting it, but not renew it another fortnight. Maybe to be reviewed again on Monday or this day next week . . . but I think its just too premature to lift it, it seems.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
I have spoken to President Putin, and I looked him in the eye and he has assured me it is not true. I therefore consider the matter closed.
I'm surprised they didn't just ask. If there were vital information pertaining to the development of a successful vaccine, I'm pretty sure we would give it to them.
One problem is that dictatorial regimes have structural problems which prevent them understanding anything altruistic, or soft power (even).
There were some hilarious accounts of the KGB hunting for the reasons why the West was doing something for country X, when it wasn't in the immediate interests of the Western country in question.
IIRC the plan is (at least for the Oxford vaccine), to freely provide all the data.
I suppose when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I have spoken to President Putin, and I looked him in the eye and he has assured me it is not true. I therefore consider the matter closed.
I'm surprised they didn't just ask. If there were vital information pertaining to the development of a successful vaccine, I'm pretty sure we would give it to them.
One problem is that dictatorial regimes have structural problems which prevent them understanding anything altruistic, or soft power (even).
There were some hilarious accounts of the KGB hunting for the reasons why the West was doing something for country X, when it wasn't in the immediate interests of the Western country in question.
IIRC the plan is (at least for the Oxford vaccine), to freely provide all the data.
I suppose when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
Which country was she born in and which country was she a citizen of before she was illegally (under international law) stripped of it due to incorrect information provided by the home office?
Hint in neither case is Bangladesh the accurate answer..
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
At the risk of Godwinisation -
A number of times during WWII, members of the Hitler Youth Division were captured. Complete with evidence of war crimes they had committed.
Given they had grown up in Germany, which was Nazi controlled since 1933 - so a decade of indoctrination - were they guilty?
But is it really likely that swing in the "Red Wall" seats would be different to the national swing to the extent stated in this article?
It seems unlikely to me.
Great caution is needed when viewing subsamples given the MOE involved. However, a big swing back to Labour in traditional redwall Labour seats is not to be ruled out. What we saw in those seats in 2019 - and also 2017 - might be similar to we have seen repeatedly in the context of LibDem/Liberal electoral surges at by elections and local elections - 'easy come easy go'. We simply do not yet know how important the 'Brexit' and 'Corbyn' factors were to the massive switch of votes. The disappearance of both could reasonably be expected to reverse much of the recent swing. In reality, Labour may find it a fair bit easier next time to pick up seats like Sedgefield and Grimsby which on paper now have clear Tory majorities than to win others such as Chipping Barnet which seem now to be much more marginal - but which have never been Labour in the past. Perhaps the swing to Labour in London etc has pretty well gone as far as it is at all likely to go- beyond picking up Kensington and a few others.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
Which country was she born in and which country was she a citizen of before she was illegally (under international law) stripped of it due to incorrect information provided by the home office?
Hint in neither case is Bangladesh the accurate answer..
She was born in the UK She was a citizen of the UK and Bangladesh.
The UK was entitled to strip her of her citizenship because we haven't left her stateless. Oh well, job done. She shouldn't have left the country and done that and expected to be welcomed back.
Looking at the Leicester figures if it was up to me I'd keep the lockdown a few days more to squish this before lifting it, but not renew it another fortnight. Maybe to be reviewed again on Monday or this day next week . . . but I think its just too premature to lift it, it seems.
The council wants the lockdown area changes to more closely match the areas effected.
OT: It always seemed obvious to me; GE 2019 was not pro-Bozo, just anti-Jezza. The electorate decided a clown for PM was preferable to a Marxist terrorist apologist.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
At the risk of Godwinisation -
A number of times during WWII, members of the Hitler Youth Division were captured. Complete with evidence of war crimes they had committed.
Given they had grown up in German, which was Nazi controlled since 1933 - so a decade of indoctrination - were they guilty?
Unless they were compelled to do so then yes absolutely. If they were compelled to do so or they'd get shot themselves (a common problem with some third world warzones today) then that's different, they're victims as well as culprits.
If these youth had grown up in the UK and had gone to Germany voluntarily to join the Hitler Youth despite having been brought up in the UK then 100% yes they would have been.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
I always feel the mistake was not recognising Islamic State as a country. We could then say that - by joining their army - she had become a de facto IS citizen.
Looking at yesterday and today's polling in the US, Trump's only chance now is for a vaccine to hit in time to impact voter's perception of what is the most important issue - the economy or the virus.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
Looking at the Leicester figures if it was up to me I'd keep the lockdown a few days more to squish this before lifting it, but not renew it another fortnight. Maybe to be reviewed again on Monday or this day next week . . . but I think its just too premature to lift it, it seems.
The council wants the lockdown area changes to more closely match the areas effected.
I know and I think that is a terrible idea, it'd just encourage people in the locked down areas to go to bars and restaurants etc in the not locked down areas.
Its one thing saying don't travel from Leicester to Nottingham, but trying to stop people from travelling from a contaminated area of Leicester to other parts of Leicester that are open . . . be rather impossible.
And for the sake of a few days, a week at the max, why do that?
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
That’s at least two doublings of the number of infections.... SAGE advised government to impose lockdown on 16 or 18 March
Vallance told the committee that SAGE advised the government to impose lockdown measures “as soon as possible” on the 16 or 18 March.
He said this happened as soon as data showed further restrictions were needed. “Looking back, you can see the data may have preceded that but the data was not available before that.”...
Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852v1 ...The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label, platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We report the preliminary results for the comparison of hydroxychloroquine vs. usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: 1561 patients randomly allocated to receive hydroxychloroquine were compared with 3155 patients concurrently allocated to usual care. Overall, 418 (26.8%) patients allocated hydroxychloroquine and 788 (25.0%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.23; P=0.18). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to hydroxychloroquine were less likely to be discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (60.3% vs. 62.8%; rate ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99) and those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline were more likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (29.8% vs. 26.5%; risk ratio 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25). There was no excess of new major cardiac arrhythmia. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.
"Two top Oxford University statisticians today claimed the government is inflating the actual daily death toll and said fewer than 40 people are actually succumbing to the illness every day. Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan claimed government figures were misleading because officials lump historical deaths onto random days — and include fatalities that happened weeks or even months ago. "
As long as they suit the purpose, ie bad for SNP /Scotland
The award for Chippy Post of the Day once again goes to the Baldrick-like lover of turnips, and purveyor of fake grievances, the uber-inarticulate (even by Nationalists' standards), Mr Malcolmg! Well done sir, you've done it again. Give yourself a nice big turnip!
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
Which country was she born in and which country was she a citizen of before she was illegally (under international law) stripped of it due to incorrect information provided by the home office?
Hint in neither case is Bangladesh the accurate answer..
She was born in the UK She was a citizen of the UK and Bangladesh.
The UK was entitled to strip her of her citizenship because we haven't left her stateless. Oh well, job done. She shouldn't have left the country and done that and expected to be welcomed back.
No she wasn't she was a citizen of the UK but had not sent any paperwork to Bangladesh - so when the Home office stated she had dual citizenship Bangladesh pointed out that, that wasn't actually the case - her right to Bangladesh citizenship had expired before she had applied for it.
Now if she had had a Bangladesh passport it would have been legally correct (albeit it morally wrong, given that her radicalisation occurred in the UK) to strip her of her citizenship - but as she didn't have said passport it was legally incorrect to strip her of her British citizenship.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
At the risk of Godwinisation -
A number of times during WWII, members of the Hitler Youth Division were captured. Complete with evidence of war crimes they had committed.
Given they had grown up in Germany, which was Nazi controlled since 1933 - so a decade of indoctrination - were they guilty?
Guilty, but indoctrination (especially as a minor) can be a valid mitigating factor.
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..
My viewpoint is she chose to leave the country to fight for ISIS so f**k her she can take her chances out in the wide world without us.
So if your child stole sweets from the corner shop you wouldn't take responsibility for her actions?
It's a view I suppose...
If she stole sweets from the corner shop then I would.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
At the risk of Godwinisation -
A number of times during WWII, members of the Hitler Youth Division were captured. Complete with evidence of war crimes they had committed.
Given they had grown up in Germany, which was Nazi controlled since 1933 - so a decade of indoctrination - were they guilty?
Guilty, but indoctrination (especially as a minor) can be a valid mitigating factor.
One of the most fundamental principles of English common law - guilt and mitigating circumstances are to be separated. A very good book on this - Cannibalism and the Common Law.
So the issue with guilt is not their indoctrination (mitigating circumstance) but whether as youth they were competent to make such decisions. I suspect with regards to war crimes, the answer would be yes.
Comments
Sure, she makes for a difficult case, but she is a UK citizen who was radicalised in the UK. Where else should she be treated or tried (as appropriate) ? Syria would probably hang her from the rafters, which we rightly find objectionable. She is our responsibility: we have to deal with her, somehow.
Sometimes doing the right thing is hard & the person having the right thing done to them is objectionable. Neither of those change the judgement as to the rightness of the actions.
No other country will take her in, for the same reasons we don't want to. In fact, any muslim-majority country has much more to fear from IS than we do. They don't have to take her, because she's not one of their citizens. We do, because she is British. This idea that we can just foist our problems on other people is bizarre.
While she is here she can face whatever legal proceedings she is due. This farce has gone on long enough.
Let's hope Stepien can again work his magic - by building Trumpsky a bridge to nowhere just like he did for that failed lardball Christie.
It is the right of the Syrians to judge her, and it is their right to apply Syrian law and Syrian punishment. Moreover, she is in Syria now. It's not like they are trying to extradite her from north Luton.
Like the BLM agitation, I have seen suspicious anti-vaxx sentiment on Twitter
The best answer, as I've said below, is to let the Syrians judge her and punish her, if they want.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2016/05/24/brexit-poll-results-vary.html
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-14/al-taqwa-coronavirus-outbreak-schools-reopening-questioned/12452266
The alarming rise in Covid in the Middle East does suggest Eid was an issue. Saudi Arabia has an under-reported problem: 250,000 cases and they are surging.
Meanwhile it is nightclubs in Korea and bars in Florida. It's like the virus attacks the culture.
1974 F 91.7% (11/12 MPs)
1974 O 83.3% (10/12 MPs)
1979 75.0% (9/12 MPs)
1983 88.2% (15/17 MPs)
1987 76.5% (13/17 MPs)
1992 76.5% (13/17 MPs)
1997 72.2% (13/18 MPs)
2001 61.1% (11/18 MPs)
2005 55.6% (10/18 MPs)
2010 50.0% (9/18 MPs)
2015 61.1% (11/18 MPs)
2017 55.6% (10/18 MPs)
2019 44.4% (8/18 MPs)
1) more aware of it
2) aware of some of the tactics that Russia had used in past
3) it wouldn't scream cover up when it's pointed out that the result Russia was (probably) aiming for was a Tory party win (to break up the EU)..
https://twitter.com/nickgourevitch/status/1283760557997400064
Not helpful to Trump and his denial of reality, of course.
Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852v1
...The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 therapy (RECOVERY) trial is a randomized, controlled, open-label, platform trial comparing a range of possible treatments with usual care in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. We report the preliminary results for the comparison of hydroxychloroquine vs. usual care alone. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Results: 1561 patients randomly allocated to receive hydroxychloroquine were compared with 3155 patients concurrently allocated to usual care. Overall, 418 (26.8%) patients allocated hydroxychloroquine and 788 (25.0%) patients allocated usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.23; P=0.18). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to hydroxychloroquine were less likely to be discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (60.3% vs. 62.8%; rate ratio 0.92; 95% CI 0.85-0.99) and those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline were more likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (29.8% vs. 26.5%; risk ratio 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25). There was no excess of new major cardiac arrhythmia. Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg#/media/File:Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election_after_2019_(LOESS).svg
Between January and April, Conservatives gaining mainly from Lib Dems. Winners bounce and rally round the flag in a crisis.
Then in May and June, a clear move from Conservatives to Labour. Starmer effect. Definitely not Dom, because nobody cares about Dom.
Since then, a bit of a drift back to the Conservatives.
The net effect of that might leave the Conservatives only slightly down, but with a more efficiently arranged opposition. Remember that the Conservative percentage vote between 1979 and 1992 barely shifted, and that gave everything from a landslide twice the size of BoJo's to a narrow squeak.
Every day another controversy and more angst
I have no idea how all this pans out politically or economically and to be fair neither does anyone else
https://twitter.com/RepSpeier/status/1283566227269591042?s=20
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2020/07/16/how-objectivity-in-journalism-became-a-matter-of-opinion
Tricky subject, but I do agree strongly with the idea that if politician X is lying, we should call it that. To do otherwise, for fear of looking unobjective, is to be unobjective.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1283748224113598466
No, I'm not advocating torture.
The CEO said he was Trump fan, so people are boycotting the company.
Trump is now trying to persuade racist white dudes to buy Mexican food...
Does anyone know in which salt mine His Foul Lowness is currently secreting his bloated, rotting carcass? Want to give the address to Geraldo so he can do another of his famous scoops!
But is it really likely that swing in the "Red Wall" seats would be different to the national swing to the extent stated in this article?
It seems unlikely to me.
The numbers are falling, but only for a few days of reliable data.
I understand they want the focus the areas of the lock down. But then you get hit with the "Community Cohesion" argument.....
The interesting tale of how no-one can remember who got permission for Usman Khan to break the conditions of his release does not inspire confidence.
Being surprised it happening after the first century seems... surprising...
I'm trying to perfect the tuck myself...
It's a view I suppose...
Corbyn's answer 'goodbye'
Last 15 days, sorted on total number, Pillar 1 & 2, by specimen date
As ever last 3-5 days are subject to revision. Last 5 days included for completeness
There were some hilarious accounts of the KGB hunting for the reasons why the West was doing something for country X, when it wasn't in the immediate interests of the Western country in question.
IIRC the plan is (at least for the Oxford vaccine), to freely provide all the data.
If she got herself out of the country to take up arms for another state then that's a different matter. And if her parents wish to leave the country to join her then they should be able to do so, but I see no reason to welcome her back when she committed treason.
Hint in neither case is Bangladesh the accurate answer..
A number of times during WWII, members of the Hitler Youth Division were captured. Complete with evidence of war crimes they had committed.
Given they had grown up in Germany, which was Nazi controlled since 1933 - so a decade of indoctrination - were they guilty?
She was a citizen of the UK and Bangladesh.
The UK was entitled to strip her of her citizenship because we haven't left her stateless. Oh well, job done. She shouldn't have left the country and done that and expected to be welcomed back.
If these youth had grown up in the UK and had gone to Germany voluntarily to join the Hitler Youth despite having been brought up in the UK then 100% yes they would have been.
So, while on a personal and humanitarian level, I am hoping for an effective and safe vaccine to be available as soon as possible, there is part of me hoping that it won't arrive in time to impact health perceptions until after 4 November.
Its one thing saying don't travel from Leicester to Nottingham, but trying to stop people from travelling from a contaminated area of Leicester to other parts of Leicester that are open . . . be rather impossible.
And for the sake of a few days, a week at the max, why do that?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8530129/Britain-announces-20-coronavirus-deaths-preliminary-toll.html
SAGE advised government to impose lockdown on 16 or 18 March
Vallance told the committee that SAGE advised the government to impose lockdown measures “as soon as possible” on the 16 or 18 March.
He said this happened as soon as data showed further restrictions were needed. “Looking back, you can see the data may have preceded that but the data was not available before that.”...
As if by magic, I was about to post this.
England deaths, all setting, by day of death
Now if she had had a Bangladesh passport it would have been legally correct (albeit it morally wrong, given that her radicalisation occurred in the UK) to strip her of her citizenship - but as she didn't have said passport it was legally incorrect to strip her of her British citizenship.
So the issue with guilt is not their indoctrination (mitigating circumstance) but whether as youth they were competent to make such decisions. I suspect with regards to war crimes, the answer would be yes.