Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
I find it hard to sympathise with someone whose apparent regret was her personal circumstances. Rather than the enslaved women she helped enslave, for example.
Her interviews reminded me of Ezra Pound - whining that it was really unfair that he was treated like a person who had done something wrong.
Was the whining Ezra Pound a 21 year old girl who had lost 3 young children?
They are both adults who have/had moral agency. Or are you being sexist and ageist?
Having moral agency does not preclude sympathy or render personal circumstances irrelevant. You made a poor comparison.
No - both have equal moral value.
The whole "but *this* one has a cute life story" thing is irrelevant.
That she was groomed as a child and succumbed to extremism at the age of 15. That there is no proof of direct involvement in atrocities. That she has lost 3 young children by the age of 21. That she has been stripped of citizenship and left stateless in a refugee camp. That she is prevented from even appealing this through government assertion of security risk.
These things are only irrelevant if you are the sort of person whose faculties shut down on seeing the word "Isis".
The Supreme Court must bow to the better judgement of an obscure left-winger on the internet.........
Didn't follow the appeal. Did the SC rule on any of the first three items? Or just the ability of the Home Office to remove her citizenship?
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
She was declared a national security risk, because she appears to.be one...
she played a much more active role in the organisation’s reign of terror as a member of the “hisba” – which metes out punishment to those found flouting Isis laws on how to dress and behave.
One activist quoted by the newspaper said Begum had been seen holding an automatic weapon and shouting at Syrian women in the city of Raqqa for wearing brightly coloured shoes.
There were separate allegations that Begum stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests, so they could not be removed without detonating
The Mail on Sunday reported that the prime minister and home secretary had been briefed on intelligence received by the CIA and Dutch military intelligence.
The government says she is too much of a security risk to be allowed into the country to fight her appeal against being declared too much of a security risk to be allowed into the country. And the SC agrees. I'm not weeping about it but there's no cause for celebration here.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
I find it hard to sympathise with someone whose apparent regret was her personal circumstances. Rather than the enslaved women she helped enslave, for example.
Her interviews reminded me of Ezra Pound - whining that it was really unfair that he was treated like a person who had done something wrong.
Was the whining Ezra Pound a 21 year old girl who had lost 3 young children?
They are both adults who have/had moral agency. Or are you being sexist and ageist?
Having moral agency does not preclude sympathy or render personal circumstances irrelevant. You made a poor comparison.
No - both have equal moral value.
The whole "but *this* one has a cute life story" thing is irrelevant.
That she was groomed as a child and succumbed to extremism at the age of 15. That there is no proof of direct involvement in atrocities. That she has lost 3 young children by the age of 21. That she has been stripped of citizenship and left stateless in a refugee camp. That she is prevented from even appealing this through government assertion of security risk.
These things are only irrelevant if you are the sort of person whose faculties shut down on seeing the word "Isis".
The Supreme Court must bow to the better judgement of an obscure left-winger on the internet.........
I have simply tried to explain why this is no cause for celebration except on the visceral level.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
I find it hard to sympathise with someone whose apparent regret was her personal circumstances. Rather than the enslaved women she helped enslave, for example.
Her interviews reminded me of Ezra Pound - whining that it was really unfair that he was treated like a person who had done something wrong.
Was the whining Ezra Pound a 21 year old girl who had lost 3 young children?
They are both adults who have/had moral agency. Or are you being sexist and ageist?
Having moral agency does not preclude sympathy or render personal circumstances irrelevant. You made a poor comparison.
Theres reason to have sympathy. The children is one. The issue of rights even for those we despise might be another.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
Fair enough. Should she be tried here though? What crimes has she committed in the UK? Grooming? I think she should be tried in the jurisdiction her crimes were committed (not unlike the American not a spy, spy lady).
I can understand fishermen being upset with the new bureaucracy and hurdles, but I don't get the total dismissal of the significant uplift in their quotas by 25% overall, which we put the whole trade deal on the line for on their behalf.
It seems some of them genuinely thought they'd get 100% of the fish in all our waters and free rein to sell it on to the EU with no extra hassle whatsoever.
That was never realistic.
Lol. Many fishermen have had a cut in their quota. Of the ones with an increase in their quota they now find themselves unable to export the extra fish they can now catch. Which makes catching them uneconomical.
Do you actually understand how things work in the real world? You see those seas surrounding the UK? Most of the little fishies are types that British people do not eat. They are fish that foreign types like to eat. So we export most of our catch to them, and import the fishies we do like eating which mainly swim in forrin waters.
Being able to catch more mackrel is fucking useless to a fisherman if he can't sell them for a profit. Nor will Shagger's "eat British fish" campaign persuade us to have Mackrel and Chips.
I've reviewed the quota tables. There are very few cuts at all on the British side. On your attempt to patronise me on the broader point you might have an argument had I personally claimed it would all be plain sailing, but instead I'd said the naïvety was on the fisherman's side. So null points there mate.
There are several posters whose analysis of the subject matter stands up to scrutiny. With your repeated hyperbole and transparent agenda you are not one of them, despite your attempts to "appeal to authority" through the fact you sit in on some supermarket powerpoint presentations and then pass on and exaggerate your selected chosen facts.
lol - I am not and never have claimed to be an authority on fishing. With regards to your patronising dismissal of the real world concerns of the fishing industry I note that you entirely evade the key point. A bigger quota - your proposed prize - is useless if you can't sell the fish.
A policy disaster for which you now blame the fishermen. My transparent agenda is for the UK to be a global trading nation. What is your transparent agenda when you blame the industry their naivety in expecting a "we're fighting for fishing" government in not utterly knackering them.
I'm not dismissing it, dipshit. Read my original post again - and again - until you understand it.
I've said on here time and time again we need a LPF arrangement on SPS standards, and specific negotiations to facilitate fresh fish and meat export. Would that get rid of all bureaucracy? No, but with increased quotas and easier clearance it would allow for more sustainable and viable businesses.
You are just obsessed with being seen to bash your simple-minded Brexiteer stereotype so you keep putting up strawmen to do it. You feel the right to wade in and lecture anyone on that basis who dares to opine on food supply chains, and you do so in an extremely condescending way.
Engage with me with respect as an individual, or fuck off.
Blimey. Your literal words were "I can understand fishermen being upset with the new bureaucracy and hurdles, but I don't get the total dismissal of the significant uplift in their quotas by 25% overall, which we put the whole trade deal on the line for on their behalf.
It seems some of them genuinely thought they'd get 100% of the fish in all our waters and free rein to sell it on to the EU with no extra hassle whatsoever."
Is that not dismissal of their plight? And blaming them for it? I will take your opinions on condescension and going forth to multiply under advisement.
I think we're forgetting that this is all taking place against a background of most restaurants (surely the biggest users of fish and shellfish) being closed across the continent, with the resulting cratering of demand.
Under normal circumstances, we know that the EU cannot (even when Britain was part of it) meet its own demand for fish, importing fish heavily. Take Britain (and its increasing quotas) away from that, and you have a huge unmet demand that cannot be supplied from elsewhere (without the same hurdles to entry as Britain faces), and so will be met by British fishing, one way or another.
I hope, rather than believe, that as business, and ways of doing business, improve for British fishing, they will be as vocal in their satisfaction as they have been in their dissatisfaction.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
She was declared a national security risk, because she appears to.be one...
she played a much more active role in the organisation’s reign of terror as a member of the “hisba” – which metes out punishment to those found flouting Isis laws on how to dress and behave.
One activist quoted by the newspaper said Begum had been seen holding an automatic weapon and shouting at Syrian women in the city of Raqqa for wearing brightly coloured shoes.
There were separate allegations that Begum stitched suicide bombers into explosive vests, so they could not be removed without detonating
The Mail on Sunday reported that the prime minister and home secretary had been briefed on intelligence received by the CIA and Dutch military intelligence.
The government says she is too much of a security risk to be allowed into the country to fight her appeal against being declared too much of a security risk to be allowed into the country. And the SC agrees. I'm not weeping about it but there's no cause for celebration here.
I'm not sure what the point is here other than that you think some people are too happy about it?
It's a complex situation as shown by it getting to the SC. People can be happy or unhappy about a court ruling. If it had gone the other way some campaigners would have celebrated.
Another way to stop invasion might be to build Taiwanese processor plants in easy-to-helilift units - get the whole of their productive capacity away and onto US vessels within 24 hours.
Not even remotely possible, alas. Semiconductor fabs have two unfortunate attributes; they're very, very large and filled with equipment that is hugely expensive and so exquisitely fragile that even specks of dust can cause them to produce lumps of dead silicon rather than working chips.
Which is part of the problem with Taiwan. A couple of bombs dropped in the right place could take a big chunk of the world's semiconductor capacity off-line for possibly years.
The current administration seems to have worked that out...
We need to follow suit here and it will be much tougher because we don't have any serious domestic industry unlike the US which has got Intel.
Building a domestic industry from scratch would be near impossible, or at least take a very long time indeed. And it would take some very large incentives to attract a significant player - and in the advanced foundry business, there's really only TSMC and Samsung.
Europe at least still has some significant manufacturers of chipmaking equipment.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
Maybe she shouldn't have been a national security risk who joined with terrorists who decapitate people? Just a thought?
Actions have consequences you know.
Your inner Alf Garnett yet again emerges.
For thinking actions have consequences? 🙄
For spouting reactionary platitudes in loco thinking.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
The Supreme Court has made the decision and has majority public support
70% of the public have common sense and a functioning moral compass, 16% do not.
That sounds about right.
Well, there must be quite a lot of Labour supporting woke lefties in that 70%, so unusually for you you're recognising that they too must have a moral compass.
On the issue, whatever one thinks, I'm not sure the decision on Begum is "fantastic news", as someone said earlier. Even if one agrees with the decision, I don't see any cause for celebration over what is a sad tale from start to finish.
Another 13% are 'Don't Knows', so if you add them on you get quite close to current Labour voting intention...
But you're right, many ordinary people who vote for centre-left parties can tell right from wrong when it's staring them in the face. The 16% are the hard core, the people who will not prioritize the safety of their country or their fellow citizens if there's any possible alternative to doing so - even if the people with whom they are preferentially sympathizing literally waged war on us and the highest court in the land has agreed with the decision.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where does Rochdale even hint that he is "absolving her of very serious terrorist offences"? You're making that up, and demeaning your discussion/disagreement in quite an offensive way.
What a relief it is to see pb's posters take a break from wanting to pelt the Supreme Court judges with rotten fruit for being quislings and traitors in order to praise their unquestioned wisdom today.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
I'm not particularly happy that Home Secretaries have such power. But they apparently do.
I therefore can dislike that they have such power and consider perhaps that should be changed, and still be phlegmatic about whether the power was exercised lawfully in this case. Certainly the grounds for it seem higher than merely whoever the pack is howling about, so that somewhat undermines criticism of the power by making it seem more arbitrary in terms of threshold than seems to be the case.
Do Alex and Nicola hate each other's guts more or less than how much they hate English?
I honestly think more.
But if you read Salmond's testimony, he did try everything possible to avoid the damage to 'the cause' from all the hooha - Sturgeon wasn't having any.
Remember he was going to be jailed. Everything he's saying now would have all the credibility of someone in arrow pyjamas with a ball and chain and telling their story through bars.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where does Rochdale even hint that he is "absolving her of very serious terrorist offences"? You're making that up, and demeaning your discussion/disagreement in quite an offensive way.
He referred to has as a "token terrorist" as if to say that she's not a real terrorist and is being unfairly targeted. That isn't the case, she has committed heinous acts of terrorism against non-muslims in Syria, aided suicide bombers who went on to commit atrocities and attempted to recruit other teenage girls from Britain and the rest of Europe to join ISIS as she did. She is beyond the pale.
What a relief it is to see pb's posters take a break from wanting to pelt the Supreme Court judges with rotten fruit for being quislings and traitors in order to praise their unquestioned wisdom today.
Lord Reed is one hell of an improvement on his unlamented predecessor, that's for sure.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
I find it hard to sympathise with someone whose apparent regret was her personal circumstances. Rather than the enslaved women she helped enslave, for example.
Her interviews reminded me of Ezra Pound - whining that it was really unfair that he was treated like a person who had done something wrong.
Was the whining Ezra Pound a 21 year old girl who had lost 3 young children?
The loss of her children is tragic no matter how awful she is, but I must say I find the focus on her age rather curious. At the very least she was old enough to know what she was joining, and the allegation is she did far worse by actively participating in many terrible deeds. Her being 21 now is entirely irrelevant.
Certainly there are issues around this where people will debate if politicians and governments should have the range of powers they have, even toward the horrible, and what tests and checks there are on those powers, I have sympathy there, but her being young shouldn't matter.
That she was groomed and went off to Syria at age 15 as a child Isis bride is imo a relevant factor in assessing her. I'm not talking legally here, just on the human level.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where am I absolving her of anything? I am openly and clearly advocating her to be tried as a terrorist. Begum is not "dual national" according to Bangladesh. She is - was - a British citizen who had committed actionable offences under English law. Instead of bringing her to justice we have washed her hands of her - now she will not face justice.
Your last paragraph was so absurd as to be laugh out loud funny btw.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
Fair enough. Should she be tried here though? What crimes has she committed in the UK? Grooming? I think she should be tried in the jurisdiction her crimes were committed (not unlike the American not a spy, spy lady).
Quite. She should be handed to the Syrian authorities to deal with.
Do Alex and Nicola hate each other's guts more or less than how much they hate English?
I honestly think more.
But if you read Salmond's testimony, he did try everything possible to avoid the damage to 'the cause' from all the hooha - Sturgeon wasn't having any.
Remember he was going to be jailed. Everything he's saying now would have all the credibility of someone in arrow pyjamas with a ball and chain and telling their story through bars.
I think you have to put yourself in his shoes.
1) As you say, he could have gone to prison.
2) He really does love his country, and he really does care about having proper institutions in place at the point it becomes independent.
What a relief it is to see pb's posters take a break from wanting to pelt the Supreme Court judges with rotten fruit for being quislings and traitors in order to praise their unquestioned wisdom today.
Is it a perfect match up between people holding those two opinions or are you just presuming anyone with view X today must have had view y on other issues? Might help to be specific about who you mean.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
Maybe she shouldn't have been a national security risk who joined with terrorists who decapitate people? Just a thought?
Actions have consequences you know.
Your inner Alf Garnett yet again emerges.
For thinking actions have consequences? 🙄
For spouting reactionary platitudes in loco thinking.
I did think and gave a good reason why this is the right decision, as backed by the highest court in the land.
You're the one reacting negatively and not thinking.
As to the detail, the Supreme Court's decision (which no one will read because it's very complicated) is very rigorously argued. By definition it is legally correct because the Supreme Court so ruled. In any case, the analysis looks faultless.
Morally, however, the Home Secretary's decision sucks. Shamima Begum was a problem created in the UK. The UK should not be dumping her on other countries to sort out.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where am I absolving her of anything? I am openly and clearly advocating her to be tried as a terrorist. Begum is not "dual national" according to Bangladesh. She is - was - a British citizen who had committed actionable offences under English law. Instead of bringing her to justice we have washed her hands of her - now she will not face justice.
Your last paragraph was so absurd as to be laugh out loud funny btw.
Her crimes were commited in Syria, what jurisdiction does a UK court have in this instance. I'm all for her facing justice, though and hope the Syrians get a chance to make her pay for her crimes.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where am I absolving her of anything? I am openly and clearly advocating her to be tried as a terrorist. Begum is not "dual national" according to Bangladesh. She is - was - a British citizen who had committed actionable offences under English law. Instead of bringing her to justice we have washed her hands of her - now she will not face justice.
Your last paragraph was so absurd as to be laugh out loud funny btw.
Isn’t the only thing that matters the question of principle. Should the Government be able to deprive you of your citizen and stop you coming home, outside of any judicial process? I think the answer should be “no”, irrespective of the crimes you are accused of. I also think British criminals are our responsibility.
What a relief it is to see pb's posters take a break from wanting to pelt the Supreme Court judges with rotten fruit for being quislings and traitors in order to praise their unquestioned wisdom today.
Only when certain PBers agree with their judgement of the day
I can understand fishermen being upset with the new bureaucracy and hurdles, but I don't get the total dismissal of the significant uplift in their quotas by 25% overall, which we put the whole trade deal on the line for on their behalf.
It seems some of them genuinely thought they'd get 100% of the fish in all our waters and free rein to sell it on to the EU with no extra hassle whatsoever.
That was never realistic.
Lol. Many fishermen have had a cut in their quota. Of the ones with an increase in their quota they now find themselves unable to export the extra fish they can now catch. Which makes catching them uneconomical.
Do you actually understand how things work in the real world? You see those seas surrounding the UK? Most of the little fishies are types that British people do not eat. They are fish that foreign types like to eat. So we export most of our catch to them, and import the fishies we do like eating which mainly swim in forrin waters.
Being able to catch more mackrel is fucking useless to a fisherman if he can't sell them for a profit. Nor will Shagger's "eat British fish" campaign persuade us to have Mackrel and Chips.
I've reviewed the quota tables. There are very few cuts at all on the British side. On your attempt to patronise me on the broader point you might have an argument had I personally claimed it would all be plain sailing, but instead I'd said the naïvety was on the fisherman's side. So null points there mate.
There are several posters whose analysis of the subject matter stands up to scrutiny. With your repeated hyperbole and transparent agenda you are not one of them, despite your attempts to "appeal to authority" through the fact you sit in on some supermarket powerpoint presentations and then pass on and exaggerate your selected chosen facts.
lol - I am not and never have claimed to be an authority on fishing. With regards to your patronising dismissal of the real world concerns of the fishing industry I note that you entirely evade the key point. A bigger quota - your proposed prize - is useless if you can't sell the fish.
A policy disaster for which you now blame the fishermen. My transparent agenda is for the UK to be a global trading nation. What is your transparent agenda when you blame the industry their naivety in expecting a "we're fighting for fishing" government in not utterly knackering them.
I'm not dismissing it, dipshit. Read my original post again - and again - until you understand it.
I've said on here time and time again we need a LPF arrangement on SPS standards, and specific negotiations to facilitate fresh fish and meat export. Would that get rid of all bureaucracy? No, but with increased quotas and easier clearance it would allow for more sustainable and viable businesses.
You are just obsessed with being seen to bash your simple-minded Brexiteer stereotype so you keep putting up strawmen to do it. You feel the right to wade in and lecture anyone on that basis who dares to opine on food supply chains, and you do so in an extremely condescending way.
Engage with me with respect as an individual, or fuck off.
Blimey. Your literal words were "I can understand fishermen being upset with the new bureaucracy and hurdles, but I don't get the total dismissal of the significant uplift in their quotas by 25% overall, which we put the whole trade deal on the line for on their behalf.
It seems some of them genuinely thought they'd get 100% of the fish in all our waters and free rein to sell it on to the EU with no extra hassle whatsoever."
Is that not dismissal of their plight? And blaming them for it? I will take your opinions on condescension and going forth to multiply under advisement.
I think we're forgetting that this is all taking place against a background of most restaurants (surely the biggest users of fish and shellfish) being closed across the continent, with the resulting cratering of demand.
Under normal circumstances, we know that the EU cannot (even when Britain was part of it) meet its own demand for fish, importing fish heavily. Take Britain (and its increasing quotas) away from that, and you have a huge unmet demand that cannot be supplied from elsewhere (without the same hurdles to entry as Britain faces), and so will be met by British fishing, one way or another.
I hope, rather than believe, that as business, and ways of doing business, improve for British fishing, they will be as vocal in their satisfaction as they have been in their dissatisfaction.
A solution will have to be found - the demand is there, and the supply is there as you rightly point out. The barrier is the TCA and specifically the aspects which the UK government insisted upon. Unless these barriers can be removed there is physically no way to supply these fish *fresh* to market as the customers require.
So the UK government needs to go to the EU and ask them to reopen negotiations over SPS and all of the other ludicrous trade barriers we demanded. Politically this is very difficult even if the government tries to pin all of the blame on the EU side.
Shamina Begum denied right of return to the UK by the Supreme Court. Huge victory for the government.
They declared her a national security risk to secure the desired verdict. She's now caught in Kafka limbo. Cannot enter the UK so cannot fight her exile from the UK. By all means cheer the outcome but it's no great vindication of the government.
I find it hard to sympathise with someone whose apparent regret was her personal circumstances. Rather than the enslaved women she helped enslave, for example.
Her interviews reminded me of Ezra Pound - whining that it was really unfair that he was treated like a person who had done something wrong.
Was the whining Ezra Pound a 21 year old girl who had lost 3 young children?
The loss of her children is tragic no matter how awful she is, but I must say I find the focus on her age rather curious. At the very least she was old enough to know what she was joining, and the allegation is she did far worse by actively participating in many terrible deeds. Her being 21 now is entirely irrelevant.
Certainly there are issues around this where people will debate if politicians and governments should have the range of powers they have, even toward the horrible, and what tests and checks there are on those powers, I have sympathy there, but her being young shouldn't matter.
That she was groomed and went off to Syria at age 15 as a child Isis bride is imo a relevant factor in assessing her. I'm not talking legally here, just on the human level.
Even legally I can see it might, fair point, but lack of contrition and that she was old enough to be held accountable for actions even then may outweigh that.
What a relief it is to see pb's posters take a break from wanting to pelt the Supreme Court judges with rotten fruit for being quislings and traitors in order to praise their unquestioned wisdom today.
Only when certain PBers agree with their judgement of the day
Tomorrow they could be traitors again
You're addition of 'certain' really makes all the difference. Makes it clear it's not some all encompassing simplification, even if people still disagree.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where does Rochdale even hint that he is "absolving her of very serious terrorist offences"? You're making that up, and demeaning your discussion/disagreement in quite an offensive way.
He referred to has as a "token terrorist" as if to say that she's not a real terrorist and is being unfairly targeted. That isn't the case, she has committed heinous acts of terrorism against non-muslims in Syria, aided suicide bombers who went on to commit atrocities and attempted to recruit other teenage girls from Britain and the rest of Europe to join ISIS as she did. She is beyond the pale.
That is entirely your inference and not backed by anything I have actually posted. Wipe the froth away from your mouth and answer the point - why is it that I want her to be brought to justice for her actions and you want her to get away with it?
What a relief it is to see pb's posters take a break from wanting to pelt the Supreme Court judges with rotten fruit for being quislings and traitors in order to praise their unquestioned wisdom today.
Lord Reed is one hell of an improvement on his unlamented predecessor, that's for sure.
Try taking just one day off from being a despicable cretin.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where am I absolving her of anything? I am openly and clearly advocating her to be tried as a terrorist. Begum is not "dual national" according to Bangladesh. She is - was - a British citizen who had committed actionable offences under English law. Instead of bringing her to justice we have washed her hands of her - now she will not face justice.
Your last paragraph was so absurd as to be laugh out loud funny btw.
Isn’t the only thing that matters the question of principle. Should the Government be able to deprive you of your citizen and stop you coming home, outside of any judicial process? I think the answer should be “no”, irrespective of the crimes you are accused of. I also think British criminals are our responsibility.
I'm not sure whether that is the only thing. I'm inclined to agree the answer should be no, though there was a process here, but can accept in a particular circumstance the law as is seems to have been adhered to.
Its certainly the case it should not be an easy thing to do. I recall some talking about depriving Assad's wife of citizenship.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where does Rochdale even hint that he is "absolving her of very serious terrorist offences"? You're making that up, and demeaning your discussion/disagreement in quite an offensive way.
He referred to has as a "token terrorist" as if to say that she's not a real terrorist and is being unfairly targeted. That isn't the case, she has committed heinous acts of terrorism against non-muslims in Syria, aided suicide bombers who went on to commit atrocities and attempted to recruit other teenage girls from Britain and the rest of Europe to join ISIS as she did. She is beyond the pale.
That is entirely your inference and not backed by anything I have actually posted. Wipe the froth away from your mouth and answer the point - why is it that I want her to be brought to justice for her actions and you want her to get away with it?
Ok, let's say we let her come back. What jurisdiction does a UK court have over crimes committed in Syria? How would the UK be able to get an extraterritorial prosecution through our justice system? She needs to be tried in Syria where her crimes were committed. You allowing her back would simply mean she gets away with it and we have to have her under permanent surveillance. The government already knows this because no crimes have been committed in the UK as we don't have any kind of modern treason law.
As to the detail, the Supreme Court's decision (which no one will read because it's very complicated) is very rigorously argued. By definition it is legally correct because the Supreme Court so ruled. In any case, the analysis looks faultless.
Morally, however, the Home Secretary's decision sucks. Shamima Begum was a problem created in the UK. The UK should not be dumping her on other countries to sort out.
I think it's fine to separate this issue out into legalities and moralities.
Like with prorogation - I'd have accepted if the court had said it was legal, but I thought it wrong either way.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where am I absolving her of anything? I am openly and clearly advocating her to be tried as a terrorist. Begum is not "dual national" according to Bangladesh. She is - was - a British citizen who had committed actionable offences under English law. Instead of bringing her to justice we have washed her hands of her - now she will not face justice.
Your last paragraph was so absurd as to be laugh out loud funny btw.
Isn’t the only thing that matters the question of principle. Should the Government be able to deprive you of your citizen and stop you coming home, outside of any judicial process? I think the answer should be “no”, irrespective of the crimes you are accused of. I also think British criminals are our responsibility.
I'm not sure whether that is the only thing. I'm inclined to agree the answer should be no, though there was a process here, but can accept in a particular circumstance the law as is seems to have been adhered to.
Its certainly the case it should not be an easy thing to do. I recall some talking about depriving Assad's wife of citizenship.
In principle I can see the argument for the option, for some. But in practice I think it’s too dangerous a power to give to Government. You never know who might be in power in the future.
What a relief it is to see pb's posters take a break from wanting to pelt the Supreme Court judges with rotten fruit for being quislings and traitors in order to praise their unquestioned wisdom today.
Lord Reed is one hell of an improvement on his unlamented predecessor, that's for sure.
Try taking just one day off from being a despicable cretin.
But why would I take advice from you that you've never followed yourself?
Her crimes were commited in Syria, what jurisdiction does a UK court have in this instance. I'm all for her facing justice, though and hope the Syrians get a chance to make her pay for her crimes.
Specifically: "10. Any individual who becomes a member or professes to be a member of a proscribed organisation is committing an offence unless one of the defences in section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 applies.
11. Under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, it is an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. That prohibition does not extend, however, to enlistment in a foreign government’s forces which are engaged in a civil war or combatting terrorism or internal uprisings."
So yes, she absolutely could - and should - be brought to justice. I - the alleged traitor who hates his country - want the full force of the law brought upon her. You - the alleged patriot - are cheering on her getting away with it, albeit with the hope that a failed and broken state will somehow impose justice.
Do Alex and Nicola hate each other's guts more or less than how much they hate English?
I honestly think more.
But if you read Salmond's testimony, he did try everything possible to avoid the damage to 'the cause' from all the hooha - Sturgeon wasn't having any.
Remember he was going to be jailed. Everything he's saying now would have all the credibility of someone in arrow pyjamas with a ball and chain and telling their story through bars.
I think you have to put yourself in his shoes.
1) As you say, he could have gone to prison.
2) He really does love his country, and he really does care about having proper institutions in place at the point it becomes independent.
He seems to me to be acting with honour.
I will never subscribe to Scottish independence as currently espoused, because I think it's an emotional issue - a 'hole' for want of a better word, that the actual realities of independence cannot ever fill. It's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that you never find.
Those who currently feel second best, powerless, angry, resentful and betrayed, or any combination of the above, would continue to find reasons to feel so, probably magnified. Those who are ambitious, open minded, thriving, and prosperous, would probably find the opportunities - but those people always have.
Alex Salmond I am sure does feel a deep love of his country, but I think, like Sturgeon, he's thrown away his considerable talents trying to leave the UK when he could have been leading the UK.
Ok, let's say we let her come back. What jurisdiction does a UK court have over crimes committed in Syria? How would the UK be able to get an extraterritorial prosecution through our justice system? She needs to be tried in Syria where her crimes were committed. You allowing her back would simply mean she gets away with it and we have to have her under permanent surveillance. The government already knows this because no crimes have been committed in the UK as we don't have any kind of modern treason law.
Surely a great patriotic advocate of British Values like your good self would take a cursory glance at the legal system you claim to champion to understand how it works? Terrorism Act 2000.
Her crimes were commited in Syria, what jurisdiction does a UK court have in this instance. I'm all for her facing justice, though and hope the Syrians get a chance to make her pay for her crimes.
Specifically: "10. Any individual who becomes a member or professes to be a member of a proscribed organisation is committing an offence unless one of the defences in section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 applies.
11. Under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, it is an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. That prohibition does not extend, however, to enlistment in a foreign government’s forces which are engaged in a civil war or combatting terrorism or internal uprisings."
So yes, she absolutely could - and should - be brought to justice. I - the alleged traitor who hates his country - want the full force of the law brought upon her. You - the alleged patriot - are cheering on her getting away with it, albeit with the hope that a failed and broken state will somehow impose justice.
1. The crime wasn't committed here.
2. ISIS isn't a foreign state. Robert actually posted about this a few years ago, one of the reasons we struggle to prosecute ISIS combatants is because they aren't recognised as a state and can't be prosecuted under that law.
If she had committed her crimes and we had a modern treason law already in place beforehand I'd agree with her coming back to face the music. As it stands she has no music to face. One of the core arguments from the government in this ruling was that they would need to keep her under 24/7 surveillance which was impossible and the court agreed.
Entertainingly bad as this enquiry is, it covers the purported actions of the Scottish Government in covering up Salmond's alleged conspiracy against him where 9 women in conjunction with senior government officers and ministers acted to lie in court in a bid to have him jailed.
I am not overly interested in the scenarios of who might have said what, and more in the really unlikely 9 women conspiring to perjure themselves for to jail the former leader of the SNP for the political gain of the SNP.
I will never subscribe to Scottish independence as currently espoused, because I think it's an emotional issue - a 'hole' for want of a better word, that the actual realities of independence cannot ever fill. It's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, that you never find.
Those who currently feel second best, powerless, angry, resentful and betrayed, or any combination of the above, would continue to find reasons to feel so, probably magnified.
Again on Ms Begum, I note the howls of pack outrage at her actions. Can I once again ask if the people cheering her removal as a citizen are happy for the existence of such powers to sit with potential Home Secretaries such as Diane Abbott? For her to remove citizenship from whomever the pack are howling about at that time?
Begum's crimes should prompt a simple process called "justice". That she cannot be brought to justice is surely a Bad Thing.
We have the actions of the Home Secretary here supported by the Supreme Court - a body not backward at coming forward when it thinks Govt. needs putting back in its box.
That the Supreme Court think this appropriate in this instance should give considerable comfort. This is not an arbitrary action of an arbitrary government. It is an action supported by the highest court in the land.
Again (again) I am not really attacking the decision. I am questioning whether the supporters of this "remove their citizenship" power would be happy with it being used by their political enemies on people they don't necessarily believe to be deserving of such actions.
How many political enemies of the Government have had their citizenship removed? Is it zero?
Begum - the token terrorist for one.
Wow. Showing your true colours here. You really do hate this country.
How do you figure that out from one line? She was a member of ISIS - which makes her a terrorist - and has been used as a token sacrifice by Patel to her patrons.
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
The idea that she's some kind of "token" terrorist that is being unfairly target is ridiculous. Around 30 others have also been swept up in this as well under the same ruling. The government has been very consistent with dual national ISIS terrorists.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Where am I absolving her of anything? I am openly and clearly advocating her to be tried as a terrorist. Begum is not "dual national" according to Bangladesh. She is - was - a British citizen who had committed actionable offences under English law. Instead of bringing her to justice we have washed her hands of her - now she will not face justice.
Your last paragraph was so absurd as to be laugh out loud funny btw.
Isn’t the only thing that matters the question of principle. Should the Government be able to deprive you of your citizen and stop you coming home, outside of any judicial process? I think the answer should be “no”, irrespective of the crimes you are accused of. I also think British criminals are our responsibility.
I'm not sure whether that is the only thing. I'm inclined to agree the answer should be no, though there was a process here, but can accept in a particular circumstance the law as is seems to have been adhered to.
Its certainly the case it should not be an easy thing to do. I recall some talking about depriving Assad's wife of citizenship.
In principle I can see the argument for the option, for some. But in practice I think it’s too dangerous a power to give to Government. You never know who might be in power in the future.
Which is important, but a side issue as to whether it can be utilised now and is done properly now. Better not at all, perhaps, but that's a question for another day. In fairness to him, Corbyn was probably the only leader who might have considered it.
Her crimes were commited in Syria, what jurisdiction does a UK court have in this instance. I'm all for her facing justice, though and hope the Syrians get a chance to make her pay for her crimes.
Specifically: "10. Any individual who becomes a member or professes to be a member of a proscribed organisation is committing an offence unless one of the defences in section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 applies.
11. Under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, it is an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. That prohibition does not extend, however, to enlistment in a foreign government’s forces which are engaged in a civil war or combatting terrorism or internal uprisings."
So yes, she absolutely could - and should - be brought to justice. I - the alleged traitor who hates his country - want the full force of the law brought upon her. You - the alleged patriot - are cheering on her getting away with it, albeit with the hope that a failed and broken state will somehow impose justice.
1. The crime wasn't committed here.
2. ISIS isn't a foreign state. Robert actually posted about this a few years ago, one of the reasons we struggle to prosecute ISIS combatants is because they aren't recognised as a state and can't be prosecuted under that law.
If she had committed her crimes and we had a modern treason law already in place beforehand I'd agree with her coming back to face the music. As it stands she has no music to face. One of the core arguments from the government in this ruling was that they would need to keep her under 24/7 surveillance which was impossible and the court agreed.
Ironically, one of the issues is the failure to follow through on the Hague and Geneva conventions.
Under those agreements, non-state actors can be considered combatants. ISIS would meet those standards. Which means that she could be tried as a war criminal for actions as part of ISIS.
Anyone care to answer why war crimes legislation is not used against such groups?
I can understand fishermen being upset with the new bureaucracy and hurdles, but I don't get the total dismissal of the significant uplift in their quotas by 25% overall, which we put the whole trade deal on the line for on their behalf.
It seems some of them genuinely thought they'd get 100% of the fish in all our waters and free rein to sell it on to the EU with no extra hassle whatsoever.
That was never realistic.
Lol. Many fishermen have had a cut in their quota. Of the ones with an increase in their quota they now find themselves unable to export the extra fish they can now catch. Which makes catching them uneconomical.
Do you actually understand how things work in the real world? You see those seas surrounding the UK? Most of the little fishies are types that British people do not eat. They are fish that foreign types like to eat. So we export most of our catch to them, and import the fishies we do like eating which mainly swim in forrin waters.
Being able to catch more mackrel is fucking useless to a fisherman if he can't sell them for a profit. Nor will Shagger's "eat British fish" campaign persuade us to have Mackrel and Chips.
I've reviewed the quota tables. There are very few cuts at all on the British side. On your attempt to patronise me on the broader point you might have an argument had I personally claimed it would all be plain sailing, but instead I'd said the naïvety was on the fisherman's side. So null points there mate.
There are several posters whose analysis of the subject matter stands up to scrutiny. With your repeated hyperbole and transparent agenda you are not one of them, despite your attempts to "appeal to authority" through the fact you sit in on some supermarket powerpoint presentations and then pass on and exaggerate your selected chosen facts.
lol - I am not and never have claimed to be an authority on fishing. With regards to your patronising dismissal of the real world concerns of the fishing industry I note that you entirely evade the key point. A bigger quota - your proposed prize - is useless if you can't sell the fish.
A policy disaster for which you now blame the fishermen. My transparent agenda is for the UK to be a global trading nation. What is your transparent agenda when you blame the industry their naivety in expecting a "we're fighting for fishing" government in not utterly knackering them.
I'm not dismissing it, dipshit. Read my original post again - and again - until you understand it.
I've said on here time and time again we need a LPF arrangement on SPS standards, and specific negotiations to facilitate fresh fish and meat export. Would that get rid of all bureaucracy? No, but with increased quotas and easier clearance it would allow for more sustainable and viable businesses.
You are just obsessed with being seen to bash your simple-minded Brexiteer stereotype so you keep putting up strawmen to do it. You feel the right to wade in and lecture anyone on that basis who dares to opine on food supply chains, and you do so in an extremely condescending way.
Engage with me with respect as an individual, or fuck off.
Blimey. Your literal words were "I can understand fishermen being upset with the new bureaucracy and hurdles, but I don't get the total dismissal of the significant uplift in their quotas by 25% overall, which we put the whole trade deal on the line for on their behalf.
It seems some of them genuinely thought they'd get 100% of the fish in all our waters and free rein to sell it on to the EU with no extra hassle whatsoever."
Is that not dismissal of their plight? And blaming them for it? I will take your opinions on condescension and going forth to multiply under advisement.
I think we're forgetting that this is all taking place against a background of most restaurants (surely the biggest users of fish and shellfish) being closed across the continent, with the resulting cratering of demand.
Under normal circumstances, we know that the EU cannot (even when Britain was part of it) meet its own demand for fish, importing fish heavily. Take Britain (and its increasing quotas) away from that, and you have a huge unmet demand that cannot be supplied from elsewhere (without the same hurdles to entry as Britain faces), and so will be met by British fishing, one way or another.
I hope, rather than believe, that as business, and ways of doing business, improve for British fishing, they will be as vocal in their satisfaction as they have been in their dissatisfaction.
A solution will have to be found - the demand is there, and the supply is there as you rightly point out. The barrier is the TCA and specifically the aspects which the UK government insisted upon. Unless these barriers can be removed there is physically no way to supply these fish *fresh* to market as the customers require.
So the UK government needs to go to the EU and ask them to reopen negotiations over SPS and all of the other ludicrous trade barriers we demanded. Politically this is very difficult even if the government tries to pin all of the blame on the EU side.
I cannot agree with your identification of the issue, or your proposed solution, without knowledge of the actual process which so far no PBer has managed to point me to.
In principle, I don't accept that we cannot find a solution to any and all information that the EU demands about imported fish. They want War & Peace written about the life of every mollusc? Fine, we find a way to give them that. They want forms and certificates? British fish processors become the world's most efficient fillers out of forms and certificates. We can do these things digitally, electronically, instantaneously. It is fair that if we want to export to their market, we meet, and are seen to meet, their standards.
Her crimes were commited in Syria, what jurisdiction does a UK court have in this instance. I'm all for her facing justice, though and hope the Syrians get a chance to make her pay for her crimes.
Specifically: "10. Any individual who becomes a member or professes to be a member of a proscribed organisation is committing an offence unless one of the defences in section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 applies.
11. Under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, it is an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. That prohibition does not extend, however, to enlistment in a foreign government’s forces which are engaged in a civil war or combatting terrorism or internal uprisings."
So yes, she absolutely could - and should - be brought to justice. I - the alleged traitor who hates his country - want the full force of the law brought upon her. You - the alleged patriot - are cheering on her getting away with it, albeit with the hope that a failed and broken state will somehow impose justice.
1. The crime wasn't committed here.
2. ISIS isn't a foreign state. Robert actually posted about this a few years ago, one of the reasons we struggle to prosecute ISIS combatants is because they aren't recognised as a state and can't be prosecuted under that law.
If she had committed her crimes and we had a modern treason law already in place beforehand I'd agree with her coming back to face the music. As it stands she has no music to face. One of the core arguments from the government in this ruling was that they would need to keep her under 24/7 surveillance which was impossible and the court agreed.
Ironically, one of the issues is the failure to follow through on the Hague and Geneva conventions.
Under those agreements, non-state actors can be considered combatants. ISIS would meet those standards. Which means that she could be tried as a war criminal for actions as part of ISIS.
Anyone care to answer why war crimes legislation is not used against such groups?
Isn't there a very high bar to meet for a war crimes prosecution? That could be why that route isn't being taken.
Just been to a chain wine merchants for the next cou[ple of weeks tipples. Gaps on the shelves. Asked whether supplies were normal and told 'no'; difficulties with supplies from several EU countries. Now that's not saying I won't drink Aussie, Argentinian or whatever; I'm always looking for something 'different'. But my options are reduced and some of my favourites don't seem to be available. Might be the effect of Covid, of course; but might not!
Comments
This country has had a LOT of similar enemies in the past. Actual IRA terrorists for a start. I don't remember the solution there being to strip them of the citizenship - they were tried. I'm an advocate for British justice over a kangaroo court - clear signs that I "hate this country" apparently.
This is a UK wide story now with all the media involved
This isn't going to go away anytime soon
Her age, however, is not a reason.
You're absolving her of very serious terrorist offences because you don't like the party in charge of the government. Think on that for a moment.
She's an "actual" ISIS terrorist just as those IRA ones. Your denial of this is disgusting and frankly puts your other comments into context of just how much you loathe this country that you would support an ISIS terrorist because they want to defeat the government.
Under normal circumstances, we know that the EU cannot (even when Britain was part of it) meet its own demand for fish, importing fish heavily. Take Britain (and its increasing quotas) away from that, and you have a huge unmet demand that cannot be supplied from elsewhere (without the same hurdles to entry as Britain faces), and so will be met by British fishing, one way or another.
I hope, rather than believe, that as business, and ways of doing business, improve for British fishing, they will be as vocal in their satisfaction as they have been in their dissatisfaction.
It's a complex situation as shown by it getting to the SC. People can be happy or unhappy about a court ruling. If it had gone the other way some campaigners would have celebrated.
And it would take some very large incentives to attract a significant player - and in the advanced foundry business, there's really only TSMC and Samsung.
Europe at least still has some significant manufacturers of chipmaking equipment.
But you're right, many ordinary people who vote for centre-left parties can tell right from wrong when it's staring them in the face. The 16% are the hard core, the people who will not prioritize the safety of their country or their fellow citizens if there's any possible alternative to doing so - even if the people with whom they are preferentially sympathizing literally waged war on us and the highest court in the land has agreed with the decision.
I therefore can dislike that they have such power and consider perhaps that should be changed, and still be phlegmatic about whether the power was exercised lawfully in this case. Certainly the grounds for it seem higher than merely whoever the pack is howling about, so that somewhat undermines criticism of the power by making it seem more arbitrary in terms of threshold than seems to be the case.
But if you read Salmond's testimony, he did try everything possible to avoid the damage to 'the cause' from all the hooha - Sturgeon wasn't having any.
Remember he was going to be jailed. Everything he's saying now would have all the credibility of someone in arrow pyjamas with a ball and chain and telling their story through bars.
Your last paragraph was so absurd as to be laugh out loud funny btw.
1) As you say, he could have gone to prison.
2) He really does love his country, and he really does care about having proper institutions in place at the point it becomes independent.
He seems to me to be acting with honour.
You're the one reacting negatively and not thinking.
Morally, however, the Home Secretary's decision sucks. Shamima Begum was a problem created in the UK. The UK should not be dumping her on other countries to sort out.
Tomorrow they could be traitors again
So the UK government needs to go to the EU and ask them to reopen negotiations over SPS and all of the other ludicrous trade barriers we demanded. Politically this is very difficult even if the government tries to pin all of the blame on the EU side.
Its certainly the case it should not be an easy thing to do. I recall some talking about depriving Assad's wife of citizenship.
Like with prorogation - I'd have accepted if the court had said it was legal, but I thought it wrong either way.
Specifically:
"10. Any individual who becomes a member or professes to be a member of a proscribed organisation is committing an offence unless one of the defences in section 11 of the Terrorism Act 2000 applies.
11. Under section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, it is an offence for a British subject to enlist in the military of a foreign state at war with another foreign state with which the UK is at peace. That prohibition does not extend, however, to enlistment in a foreign government’s forces which are engaged in a civil war or combatting terrorism or internal uprisings."
So yes, she absolutely could - and should - be brought to justice. I - the alleged traitor who hates his country - want the full force of the law brought upon her. You - the alleged patriot - are cheering on her getting away with it, albeit with the hope that a failed and broken state will somehow impose justice.
Those who currently feel second best, powerless, angry, resentful and betrayed, or any combination of the above, would continue to find reasons to feel so, probably magnified. Those who are ambitious, open minded, thriving, and prosperous, would probably find the opportunities - but those people always have.
Alex Salmond I am sure does feel a deep love of his country, but I think, like Sturgeon, he's thrown away his considerable talents trying to leave the UK when he could have been leading the UK.
2. ISIS isn't a foreign state. Robert actually posted about this a few years ago, one of the reasons we struggle to prosecute ISIS combatants is because they aren't recognised as a state and can't be prosecuted under that law.
If she had committed her crimes and we had a modern treason law already in place beforehand I'd agree with her coming back to face the music. As it stands she has no music to face. One of the core arguments from the government in this ruling was that they would need to keep her under 24/7 surveillance which was impossible and the court agreed.
162
246
1,503
3,490
6,453
9,712
11,607
I am not overly interested in the scenarios of who might have said what, and more in the really unlikely 9 women conspiring to perjure themselves for to jail the former leader of the SNP for the political gain of the SNP.
New thread
Under those agreements, non-state actors can be considered combatants. ISIS would meet those standards. Which means that she could be tried as a war criminal for actions as part of ISIS.
Anyone care to answer why war crimes legislation is not used against such groups?
In principle, I don't accept that we cannot find a solution to any and all information that the EU demands about imported fish. They want War & Peace written about the life of every mollusc? Fine, we find a way to give them that. They want forms and certificates? British fish processors become the world's most efficient fillers out of forms and certificates. We can do these things digitally, electronically, instantaneously. It is fair that if we want to export to their market, we meet, and are seen to meet, their standards.
Now that's not saying I won't drink Aussie, Argentinian or whatever; I'm always looking for something 'different'. But my options are reduced and some of my favourites don't seem to be available.
Might be the effect of Covid, of course; but might not!