Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So you’re aligned in principal of the ISIS *deterrant* justice system, just not the execution, so to speak...

No of course not, but i do have a balanced view, whereas youre the sort of person that bangs on about rights and al the rest and gets beaten up by taxi drivers. Its reflected in your fearful apologetic approach to life.

ISIS want to kill you and your way of life. wake up and smell the coffee Rick. did you study a revisionary version of history where the white man was the aggressor and terrorism the result of western imperial practices? Because the world is far more nuanced than that

Funny how you want to talk about nuance now. Earlier it was all drone strikes on refugee camps and 'angin's too good fer'em.

I didn't advocate drone strikes on refugee camps, that was the absurd reaction from smug know it alls to my suggestion that taking out terrorists with drones was a positive thing. only a moron would bomb refugee camps. Don't be a moron.

There are a lot of the london set here that think they're intellectually superior; from what i can see they're just baying know italls that wouldn't have the balls or the strength of personality required to deal with a real life issue should it present itself.

It's also noticeable that the same group of people appear to have no real life experience of what life is like in other parts of the world. Perhaps then it is not surprising that their views are informed by the right on, left wing and liberal bias of their teachers.

At least if you are going to put forward your 'real world' solutions, have the balls to not run away from them the first time someone challenges you.

Begum is living in a refugee camp along with all the other like minded women and their children that the SDF allowed out of Baghuz (what a bunch of liberal wets).What's to stop any of them just walking out of Syria and pitching up in Southern Europe? Or setting up somewhere with an Internet connection to encourage more Britons to follow her example? I mean the SDF are opposed to Assad and are only tolerated because they share a common enemy and are backed by the US. Once they've finished their job in Baghuz they'll be next on Assad's list and who knows what will happen to the actual IS fighters that they are holding. I doubt there will be an orderly handover.

Supposing Javid successfully revokes the citizenship of all the several hundred (ex)Britons in Syria and elsewhere - do you really think that makes us safer? It sounds more like putting our fingers in our ears and hoping we'll get away with it.

Get a grip, Begum has left the refugee camp to destination currently unknown.

its not as easy as wandering over to Southern Europe as you make it sound, the internet thing is a problem where ever these people are and as for revokation of citizenship for the several hundred terrorists thats not an option because its against the law.

If you're going to make asinine comments like "have the balls not to run away when someone challenges you" it might be better if you did challenge. Of course if youre going to bang on about the law and then conveniently ignore the laws that you dont like or like others here start quoting what a back bench politicians views are as some kind of trump card then really there isnt much point discussing this with you. Just read the guardian, the socialist worker or whatever work of fiction chakrabati has produced most recently.

Are we building up to another flounce here? Begum left one camp and moved to another. You started off saying you wish her a painful death, then suggesting that the Syrian authorities should deal with her even though that part of the country is under SDF control. Then you started suggesting killing her with a drone strike. Now you're saying that isn't what you meant, all the while dodging any questions. If a 15year old school kid can get to Syria without a valid passport do you really think it's that difficult to get back to Europe. Do you think pretending people like Begum are someone else's problem makes us safer? I'd put a lot more faith in the concrete security barriers I ride between most mornings than a Home Secretary showboating to his party membership.

Theres no flouncing here, my position hasnt changed, I'm happy for her painful death to arrive anyone of a number of ways, so whilst your mincing through concrete barriers you might like to consider that show boating or not, id rather have a robust legal approach to security taken than embracing terrorists which the labour party leadership has done for decades.

Darling, I can't mince when I'm riding. Only when I'm walking. I'm on foot today though, so...You seem to think us "London set" are isolated from all of this, but maybe we've seen more than out in the sticks what with the 2005 attacks, the Lee Rigby murder, the two bridge attacks and a couple of failed bombs on the tube. Anyway, which is it: the robust legal approach or killing her?

No idea what the Labour leadership has to do with anything. Do you have me down as a Labour supporter?

must be something in the water - I got called a commie, which has got me pondering the collectivisation of farms

Ben6899

There's some gold-plated chippiness on this thread, towards that London lot.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So you’re aligned in principal of the ISIS *deterrant* justice system, just not the execution, so to speak...

No of course not, but i do have a balanced view, whereas youre the sort of person that bangs on about rights and al the rest and gets beaten up by taxi drivers. Its reflected in your fearful apologetic approach to life.

ISIS want to kill you and your way of life. wake up and smell the coffee Rick. did you study a revisionary version of history where the white man was the aggressor and terrorism the result of western imperial practices? Because the world is far more nuanced than that

Funny how you want to talk about nuance now. Earlier it was all drone strikes on refugee camps and 'angin's too good fer'em.

I didn't advocate drone strikes on refugee camps, that was the absurd reaction from smug know it alls to my suggestion that taking out terrorists with drones was a positive thing. only a moron would bomb refugee camps. Don't be a moron.

There are a lot of the london set here that think they're intellectually superior; from what i can see they're just baying know italls that wouldn't have the balls or the strength of personality required to deal with a real life issue should it present itself.

It's also noticeable that the same group of people appear to have no real life experience of what life is like in other parts of the world. Perhaps then it is not surprising that their views are informed by the right on, left wing and liberal bias of their teachers.

At least if you are going to put forward your 'real world' solutions, have the balls to not run away from them the first time someone challenges you.

Begum is living in a refugee camp along with all the other like minded women and their children that the SDF allowed out of Baghuz (what a bunch of liberal wets).What's to stop any of them just walking out of Syria and pitching up in Southern Europe? Or setting up somewhere with an Internet connection to encourage more Britons to follow her example? I mean the SDF are opposed to Assad and are only tolerated because they share a common enemy and are backed by the US. Once they've finished their job in Baghuz they'll be next on Assad's list and who knows what will happen to the actual IS fighters that they are holding. I doubt there will be an orderly handover.

Supposing Javid successfully revokes the citizenship of all the several hundred (ex)Britons in Syria and elsewhere - do you really think that makes us safer? It sounds more like putting our fingers in our ears and hoping we'll get away with it.

Get a grip, Begum has left the refugee camp to destination currently unknown.

its not as easy as wandering over to Southern Europe as you make it sound, the internet thing is a problem where ever these people are and as for revokation of citizenship for the several hundred terrorists thats not an option because its against the law.

If you're going to make asinine comments like "have the balls not to run away when someone challenges you" it might be better if you did challenge. Of course if youre going to bang on about the law and then conveniently ignore the laws that you dont like or like others here start quoting what a back bench politicians views are as some kind of trump card then really there isnt much point discussing this with you. Just read the guardian, the socialist worker or whatever work of fiction chakrabati has produced most recently.

Are we building up to another flounce here? Begum left one camp and moved to another. You started off saying you wish her a painful death, then suggesting that the Syrian authorities should deal with her even though that part of the country is under SDF control. Then you started suggesting killing her with a drone strike. Now you're saying that isn't what you meant, all the while dodging any questions. If a 15year old school kid can get to Syria without a valid passport do you really think it's that difficult to get back to Europe. Do you think pretending people like Begum are someone else's problem makes us safer? I'd put a lot more faith in the concrete security barriers I ride between most mornings than a Home Secretary showboating to his party membership.

Theres no flouncing here, my position hasnt changed, I'm happy for her painful death to arrive anyone of a number of ways, so whilst your mincing through concrete barriers you might like to consider that show boating or not, id rather have a robust legal approach to security taken than embracing terrorists which the labour party leadership has done for decades.

Darling, I can't mince when I'm riding. Only when I'm walking. I'm on foot today though, so...You seem to think us "London set" are isolated from all of this, but maybe we've seen more than out in the sticks what with the 2005 attacks, the Lee Rigby murder, the two bridge attacks and a couple of failed bombs on the tube. Anyway, which is it: the robust legal approach or killing her?

No idea what the Labour leadership has to do with anything. Do you have me down as a Labour supporter?

must be something in the water - I got called a commie, which has got me pondering the collectivisation of farms

Alejandrosdog

the only thing shes done is travel under a stolen passport as a child. The oversimplification and naivety is not surprising but really? lets have a look at the things shes done that she admits to having done or has done in interview.

1 left to join ISIS. A proscribed terrorist organisation
2 justified the bombing of little girls at the manchester arena
3 continues to support ISIS

Theres three more. or are these things not important.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

rjsterry

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.1 left to join ISIS. A proscribed terrorist organisation
2 justified the bombing of little girls at the manchester arena
3 continues to support ISIS.

1. Of course, no-one is arguing that. In fact all of us wets are saying she should be prosecuted under that law.
2. Obviously an idiotic and disgusting thing to say, but really this is just more of point 1: supports ISIS.
3. That's just the same as point 1, again.

Which is fine. Supporting ISIS is enough.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

Oh, well, if she's got funny eyes then Javid was right.

Alejandrosdog

well no doubt if her supporters help her get here she could claim asylum? or if any appeal against the removal of British Citizenship is successful AND she can find her way here she can be tried.

Id just rather she died and saved everyone the trouble and expense.

Matthewfalle

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

so: eyes and teeth.

no smash?

Alejandrosdog

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

so: eyes and teeth.

no smash?

Def no smash. The constant sniffing puts me off too and that medieval cloak thing. Whats that all about?

morstar

Mummy, mummy, look, I've posted intentionally contentious stuff on the internet.

I'm the next Clarkson, I'm the next Clarkson, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner.

Kudos to those applying reason.

ballysmate

Perhaps this is her solution.

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13103868

Alejandrosdog

morstar wrote:

Mummy, mummy, look, I've posted intentionally contentious stuff on the internet.

I'm the next Clarkson, I'm the next Clarkson, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner.

Kudos to those applying the sort of reason i like.

fixed it for you sweetie

Alejandrosdog

Ballysmate wrote:

Perhaps this is her solution.

viewtopic.php?f=40088&t=13103868

morstar

Alejandrosdog wrote:

morstar wrote:

Mummy, mummy, look, I've posted intentionally contentious stuff on the internet.

I'm the next Clarkson, I'm the next Clarkson, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner.

Kudos to those applying the sort of reason i like.

fixed it for you sweetie

So, you assumed I was referring to you then

john80

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.1 left to join ISIS. A proscribed terrorist organisation
2 justified the bombing of little girls at the manchester arena
3 continues to support ISIS.

1. Of course, no-one is arguing that. In fact all of us wets are saying she should be prosecuted under that law.
2. Obviously an idiotic and disgusting thing to say, but really this is just more of point 1: supports ISIS.
3. That's just the same as point 1, again.

Which is fine. Supporting ISIS is enough.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

Oh, well, if she's got funny eyes then Javid was right.

Unfortunately for the wets as you have self declared it turns out the law is a bit behind the curve. But then this guy could be talking nonsense eh.

https://www.ft.com/content/157c8e12-305 ... 016697f225

Still so sure that our legal system is going to be able to deal with this more effectively than say distance? This if very reminiscent of all those people that claim jail does not work. The evidence is clear in that little crime is committed by people housed in such facilities against society through enforced segregation. The only final part of the puzzle is to educate those individuals to make it seem like obeying the law is easier than not. Given we struggle to rehabilitate a burglar to prevent his next stay more often than we are successful what chance have we got with a religious fundamentalist who is entirely more committed to their cause. The burglar is only interested in money so in his case you only have to find a way for him to get this with less hassle on average than continuing his trade.

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.1 left to join ISIS. A proscribed terrorist organisation
2 justified the bombing of little girls at the manchester arena
3 continues to support ISIS.

1. Of course, no-one is arguing that. In fact all of us wets are saying she should be prosecuted under that law.
2. Obviously an idiotic and disgusting thing to say, but really this is just more of point 1: supports ISIS.
3. That's just the same as point 1, again.

Which is fine. Supporting ISIS is enough.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

Oh, well, if she's got funny eyes then Javid was right.

Unfortunately for the wets as you have self declared it turns out the law is a bit behind the curve. But then this guy could be talking nonsense eh.

https://www.ft.com/content/157c8e12-305 ... 016697f225

Still so sure that our legal system is going to be able to deal with this more effectively than say distance? This if very reminiscent of all those people that claim jail does not work. The evidence is clear in that little crime is committed by people housed in such facilities against society through enforced segregation. The only final part of the puzzle is to educate those individuals to make it seem like obeying the law is easier than not. Given we struggle to rehabilitate a burglar to prevent his next stay more often than we are successful what chance have we got with a religious fundamentalist who is entirely more committed to their cause. The burglar is only interested in money so in his case you only have to find a way for him to get this with less hassle on average than continuing his trade.

The FT article is hidden behind a paywall so I'll have to guess at the content, but you seem to be arguing with yourself. You start off saying that prison is effective (though I'd dispute that it's as crime-free as you suggest) and end up saying it can't be trusted to rehabilitate. If the idea is that the extra distance provides some additional protection then the case of Lewis Ludlow would suggest otherwise. He was a recruited online and persuaded to plan a truck attack on Oxford Street by an IS militant in the Philippines.

Matthewfalle

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

and that medieval cloak thing. Whats that all about?

not sure but at least you could hide under it to avoid paying entry into cinemas, night clubs and places like Peppa Pig World and Alton Towers.

So potential at least.

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

and that medieval cloak thing. Whats that all about?

not sure but at least you could hide under it to avoid paying entry into cinemas, night clubs and places like Peppa Pig World and Alton Towers.

So potential at least.

Maybe they're just misunderstood Star Wars fans with a thing for Darth Vader?

john80

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.1 left to join ISIS. A proscribed terrorist organisation
2 justified the bombing of little girls at the manchester arena
3 continues to support ISIS.

1. Of course, no-one is arguing that. In fact all of us wets are saying she should be prosecuted under that law.
2. Obviously an idiotic and disgusting thing to say, but really this is just more of point 1: supports ISIS.
3. That's just the same as point 1, again.

Which is fine. Supporting ISIS is enough.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

Oh, well, if she's got funny eyes then Javid was right.

Unfortunately for the wets as you have self declared it turns out the law is a bit behind the curve. But then this guy could be talking nonsense eh.

https://www.ft.com/content/157c8e12-305 ... 016697f225

Still so sure that our legal system is going to be able to deal with this more effectively than say distance? This if very reminiscent of all those people that claim jail does not work. The evidence is clear in that little crime is committed by people housed in such facilities against society through enforced segregation. The only final part of the puzzle is to educate those individuals to make it seem like obeying the law is easier than not. Given we struggle to rehabilitate a burglar to prevent his next stay more often than we are successful what chance have we got with a religious fundamentalist who is entirely more committed to their cause. The burglar is only interested in money so in his case you only have to find a way for him to get this with less hassle on average than continuing his trade.

The FT article is hidden behind a paywall so I'll have to guess at the content, but you seem to be arguing with yourself. You start off saying that prison is effective (though I'd dispute that it's as crime-free as you suggest) and end up saying it can't be trusted to rehabilitate. If the idea is that the extra distance provides some additional protection then the case of Lewis Ludlow would suggest otherwise. He was a recruited online and persuaded to plan a truck attack on Oxford Street by an IS militant in the Philippines.

The article basically points out how far our laws are behind the current situation and basically states that only the most foolish who documented their crimes extensively on social media have had charges laid against them. Apologies if you do not get sarcasm but basically distance like prison is pretty good at protecting society. I am not really looking at what goes on between inmates of a facility and was not suggesting that. In the UK we believe in banging people up often quite long after they have created misery to others and then choose not to spend money on rehabilitation to societies detriment. Given the UK won't fund the rehabilitation of a burglar or a junky what makes you think we are either able to or willing to fund de-radicalisation of religious fundamentalists. I mean currently I am feeling pretty safe from a member of Al Shabaab located in Somalia. He has got to get on some transport to come and mess up my community, Good old Lewis Ludlow might just need a bus ticket as and a pair of walking shoes to come and kill people that I care about. Maybe you are suggesting that Shamina Begum or her husband is going to radicalise him after our prison service in 5 years has de-radicalised him from her camp with very little facilities. This is sarcasm as for the avoidance of doubt.

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

and that medieval cloak thing. Whats that all about?

not sure but at least you could hide under it to avoid paying entry into cinemas, night clubs and places like Peppa Pig World and Alton Towers.

So potential at least.

Maybe they're just misunderstood Star Wars fans with a thing for Darth Vader?

Darth Vadar pron?

now lets get googling.

Matthewfalle

the answer is an affirmative.

Stevo_666

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

and that medieval cloak thing. Whats that all about?

not sure but at least you could hide under it to avoid paying entry into cinemas, night clubs and places like Peppa Pig World and Alton Towers.

So potential at least.

Maybe they're just misunderstood Star Wars fans with a thing for Darth Vader?

Darth Vadar pron?

now lets get googling.

I'm sure there is a joke or two in there about light Sabres and 'feeling the force'.

Matthewfalle

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

and that medieval cloak thing. Whats that all about?

not sure but at least you could hide under it to avoid paying entry into cinemas, night clubs and places like Peppa Pig World and Alton Towers.

So potential at least.

Maybe they're just misunderstood Star Wars fans with a thing for Darth Vader?

Darth Vadar pron?

now lets get googling.

I'm sure there is a joke or two in there about light Sabres and 'feeling the force'.

no. just some burd dressed as princess leia playing with willies.

robert88

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.1 left to join ISIS. A proscribed terrorist organisation
2 justified the bombing of little girls at the manchester arena
3 continues to support ISIS.

1. Of course, no-one is arguing that. In fact all of us wets are saying she should be prosecuted under that law.
2. Obviously an idiotic and disgusting thing to say, but really this is just more of point 1: supports ISIS.
3. That's just the same as point 1, again.

Which is fine. Supporting ISIS is enough.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

Oh, well, if she's got funny eyes then Javid was right.

Unfortunately for the wets as you have self declared it turns out the law is a bit behind the curve. But then this guy could be talking nonsense eh.

https://www.ft.com/content/157c8e12-305 ... 016697f225

Still so sure that our legal system is going to be able to deal with this more effectively than say distance? This if very reminiscent of all those people that claim jail does not work. The evidence is clear in that little crime is committed by people housed in such facilities against society through enforced segregation. The only final part of the puzzle is to educate those individuals to make it seem like obeying the law is easier than not. Given we struggle to rehabilitate a burglar to prevent his next stay more often than we are successful what chance have we got with a religious fundamentalist who is entirely more committed to their cause. The burglar is only interested in money so in his case you only have to find a way for him to get this with less hassle on average than continuing his trade.

The FT article is hidden behind a paywall so I'll have to guess at the content, but you seem to be arguing with yourself. You start off saying that prison is effective (though I'd dispute that it's as crime-free as you suggest) and end up saying it can't be trusted to rehabilitate. If the idea is that the extra distance provides some additional protection then the case of Lewis Ludlow would suggest otherwise. He was a recruited online and persuaded to plan a truck attack on Oxford Street by an IS militant in the Philippines.

The article basically points out how far our laws are behind the current situation..

Apparently because our law makers have had all the time taken up by the stupidity that is 'brexit'.

pinno

What is this 'Brexit' you talk of?!

Alejandrosdog

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.

and that medieval cloak thing. Whats that all about?

not sure but at least you could hide under it to avoid paying entry into cinemas, night clubs and places like Peppa Pig World and Alton Towers.

So potential at least.

Maybe they're just misunderstood Star Wars fans with a thing for Darth Vader?

Darth Vadar pron?

now lets get googling.

I'm sure there is a joke or two in there about light Sabres and 'feeling the force'.

no. just some burd dressed as princess leia playing with willies.

I've seen that film!! I was considering applying for the role of Jabba the hut in the sequel so i could chain her to me. It was the breath play that appealed.

Matthewfalle

Pinno wrote:

What is this 'Brexit' you talk of?!

brexit porn?

#prayforHayden

robert88

Pinno wrote:

What is this 'Brexit' you talk of?!

It's nothing really. Forget I mentioned it.

Alejandrosdog

Matthewfalle wrote:

Pinno wrote:

What is this 'Brexit' you talk of?!

brexit porn?

theresa may in leopard print heels mmmmmmmmmmm

Matthewfalle

bizarrely, there is.

#prayforhayden

rjsterry

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

john80 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

.1 left to join ISIS. A proscribed terrorist organisation
2 justified the bombing of little girls at the manchester arena
3 continues to support ISIS.

1. Of course, no-one is arguing that. In fact all of us wets are saying she should be prosecuted under that law.
2. Obviously an idiotic and disgusting thing to say, but really this is just more of point 1: supports ISIS.
3. That's just the same as point 1, again.

Which is fine. Supporting ISIS is enough.

that no longer British woman with her retarded looking eyes should be left to die.

Oh, well, if she's got funny eyes then Javid was right.

Unfortunately for the wets as you have self declared it turns out the law is a bit behind the curve. But then this guy could be talking nonsense eh.

https://www.ft.com/content/157c8e12-305 ... 016697f225

Still so sure that our legal system is going to be able to deal with this more effectively than say distance? This if very reminiscent of all those people that claim jail does not work. The evidence is clear in that little crime is committed by people housed in such facilities against society through enforced segregation. The only final part of the puzzle is to educate those individuals to make it seem like obeying the law is easier than not. Given we struggle to rehabilitate a burglar to prevent his next stay more often than we are successful what chance have we got with a religious fundamentalist who is entirely more committed to their cause. The burglar is only interested in money so in his case you only have to find a way for him to get this with less hassle on average than continuing his trade.

The FT article is hidden behind a paywall so I'll have to guess at the content, but you seem to be arguing with yourself. You start off saying that prison is effective (though I'd dispute that it's as crime-free as you suggest) and end up saying it can't be trusted to rehabilitate. If the idea is that the extra distance provides some additional protection then the case of Lewis Ludlow would suggest otherwise. He was a recruited online and persuaded to plan a truck attack on Oxford Street by an IS militant in the Philippines.

The article basically points out how far our laws are behind the current situation and basically states that only the most foolish who documented their crimes extensively on social media have had charges laid against them. Apologies if you do not get sarcasm but basically distance like prison is pretty good at protecting society. I am not really looking at what goes on between inmates of a facility and was not suggesting that. In the UK we believe in banging people up often quite long after they have created misery to others and then choose not to spend money on rehabilitation to societies detriment. Given the UK won't fund the rehabilitation of a burglar or a junky what makes you think we are either able to or willing to fund de-radicalisation of religious fundamentalists. I mean currently I am feeling pretty safe from a member of Al Shabaab located in Somalia. He has got to get on some transport to come and mess up my community, Good old Lewis Ludlow might just need a bus ticket as and a pair of walking shoes to come and kill people that I care about. Maybe you are suggesting that Shamina Begum or her husband is going to radicalise him after our prison service in 5 years has de-radicalised him from her camp with very little facilities. This is sarcasm as for the avoidance of doubt.

Thanks. From what I've seen that seems unlikely. Point is, either she is as Javid implies a terrorist mastermind, a danger to the public and therefore worthy of such a draconian measure, in which case maybe that is not the best way to keep us safe. Or, if she's just an idiot with some disgusting views but otherwise of no great consequence, why give the free propaganda to ISIS?