Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK
Comments
-
She has apparently asked for forgiveness now, but you do have to question her sincerity at this point.
0 -
Yes, she has reached out to us with her lawyers. We could send her a copy of Carry On Camping to cheer her up and show her good faith in return.1
-
Yes I didn't say she did choose British citizenship and it's because she was born and raised here that I think morally we should take her back - that and the fact she was 15 when she went out there.rjsterry said:
She didn't choose British citizenship. She was born and raised here. IDeVlaeminck said:My take on this is that she's not Bangladesh's problem and morally we should take her back.
Having said that if a country allows dual citizenship it opens itself up to this kind of thing - personal view is that if you become a UK citizen you should have to give up your previous citizenship and vice versa.
Not a criticism of those that choose to take advantage of the system as it is.
The point about dual citizenship was just that if a country allows it they can't really turn round and deny that person is a citizen when it doesn't suit them - in this case that would apply to both the UK and Bangladesh.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
See my post made last night with a quote from their citizenship law.DeVlaeminck said:
The point about dual citizenship was just that if a country allows it they can't really turn round and deny that person is a citizen when it doesn't suit them - in this case that would apply to both the UK and Bangladesh.
As her father was given right to stay in Britain she cannot be given Bangladeshi citizenship, unless she applies for it.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill0 -
As she has had her British citizenship revoked, she is not British so it is pretty easy to answer that. Nothing to do with colour or religion, it's a legal fact.surrey_commuter said:Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
I think the thread is an interesting study in how far people think they push racist comments without actually coming out with a completely unambiguously racist “she’s a xxxx” statement.surrey_commuter said:Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill0 -
When she was in the caliphate and it was all going well. When I mean well I mean when they were killing with impunity and sexually abusing the yazidis. Her husband was leaving for work in the morning with a gun and killing people randomly if their imaginary person was not as convincing as his. Came home at night maybe even with a slave wife to abuse. Stellar guy that Dutchman.and a credit to his nation.
When the trial comes round in the UK as a lot of you seem to want it would seem to me the only thing we can pin on her is joining a terrorist organisation. Unless you guys can magic up some witness statements from a chaotic environment with many displaced people. A year or two in jail should discharge that liability and then she can come and live next to you. I don't think I have much in common with her so would pass on inviting her round for tea. Get her on the local school PTA she will fit right in.0 -
Yes heaven forbid we couldn't convict her for things we don't have evidence happened.john80 said:When she was in the caliphate and it was all going well. When I mean well I mean when they were killing with impunity and sexually abusing the yazidis. Her husband was leaving for work in the morning with a gun and killing people randomly if their imaginary person was not as convincing as his. Came home at night maybe even with a slave wife to abuse. Stellar guy that Dutchman.and a credit to his nation.
When the trial comes round in the UK as a lot of you seem to want it would seem to me the only thing we can pin on her is joining a terrorist organisation. Unless you guys can magic up some witness statements from a chaotic environment with many displaced people. A year or two in jail should discharge that liability and then she can come and live next to you. I don't think I have much in common with her so would pass on inviting her round for tea. Get her on the local school PTA she will fit right in.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Of course people are free to find the finding unpalatable, but if the SC is asked to rule on a point of law, you can grumble all you like but you must accept the ruling. This will now be case law.rick_chasey said:
What is it about sometimes agreeing with rulings and not with others that you feel is problematic?ballysmate said:
Should we have to agree 100% or not at all?
1 -
Has she actually been convicted of anything, anywhere?
I thought our justice system was built on innocent until proven guilty?0 -
FFS keep up at the back we are discussing if she should have had her British citizenship revoked on the grounds she was not a proper British citizen.Stevo_666 said:
As she has had her British citizenship revoked, she is not British so it is pretty easy to answer that. Nothing to do with colour or religion, it's a legal fact.surrey_commuter said:Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill
On what grounds do you consider her to not be a proper British citizen?0 -
surrey_commuter said:
Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill
Geraint Thomas has achieved the pinnacle of Sports Personality Of The Year, having won the TDF once. Where as Chris Froome who has won multiple GT's, hasn't. So I don't think it's just a matter of colour or religion. Everybody loved Dame Kelly Homes, Sir Mo Farah, Linford Christie, Daily Thompsons...achievements.
That's probably a better thing to talk about. People who have embraced Britain and made the best of it.0 -
Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.0
-
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
0 -
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:0 -
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:0 -
It's not even about her, it's about rule of law.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
0 -
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:0 -
That's half the problem with this thread. People are using it to support their agenda rather than the reality of the situation, which the Supreme Court has defined.0
-
What agenda would that be?focuszing723 said:That's half the problem with this thread. People are using it to support their agenda rather than the reality of the situation, which the Supreme Court has defined.
0 -
I don't really care and I've wasted enough time on it as it is.0
-
That's not how I read your post, so express yourself better next time.surrey_commuter said:
FFS keep up at the back we are discussing if she should have had her British citizenship revoked on the grounds she was not a proper British citizen.Stevo_666 said:
As she has had her British citizenship revoked, she is not British so it is pretty easy to answer that. Nothing to do with colour or religion, it's a legal fact.surrey_commuter said:Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill
On what grounds do you consider her to not be a proper British citizen?
Pointless question anyway, as it has already been revoked."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I hadn't realised that SC rulings meant the issue can't be debated in an internet forum. They really do have wide sweeping powers.Stevo_666 said:
That's not how I read your post, so express yourself better next time.surrey_commuter said:
FFS keep up at the back we are discussing if she should have had her British citizenship revoked on the grounds she was not a proper British citizen.Stevo_666 said:
As she has had her British citizenship revoked, she is not British so it is pretty easy to answer that. Nothing to do with colour or religion, it's a legal fact.surrey_commuter said:Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill
On what grounds do you consider her to not be a proper British citizen?
Pointless question anyway, as it has already been revoked.0 -
In which case the SC has ruled on a point of law, accept it and move on.elbowloh said:
It's not even about her, it's about rule of law.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
0 -
So we can't disagree with the decision?ballysmate said:
In which case the SC has ruled on a point of law, accept it and move on.elbowloh said:
It's not even about her, it's about rule of law.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
0 -
By all means grumble about, cheer about it, it doesn't matter. The SC have given a ruling and it is now case law.elbowloh said:
I hadn't realised that SC rulings meant the issue can't be debated in an internet forum. They really do have wide sweeping powers.Stevo_666 said:
That's not how I read your post, so express yourself better next time.surrey_commuter said:
FFS keep up at the back we are discussing if she should have had her British citizenship revoked on the grounds she was not a proper British citizen.Stevo_666 said:
As she has had her British citizenship revoked, she is not British so it is pretty easy to answer that. Nothing to do with colour or religion, it's a legal fact.surrey_commuter said:Some people do not consider her to be very British and others suspect that is due to her colour and religion. Would it help if we drew up a list of people she is more or less British than?
Bradley Wiggins?
Chris Froome?
Daniel Hannan?
Boris Johnson?
Winston Churchill
On what grounds do you consider her to not be a proper British citizen?
Pointless question anyway, as it has already been revoked.
But Stevo is correct, there is nothing left to debate, the legal position is a fact.1 -
That's not true. "the court did hold out the slender hope that Begum could have a final appeal against the decision to revoke her citizenship if she were ever to be in a position where she could properly instruct lawyers"
"concluding that the only fair response was for any final appeal against the decision to revoke her British citizenship to be held over until “Begum is in a position to play an effective part in it without the safety of the public being compromised”. However, given her detention, it was unclear when that would be the case"1 -
Didn't realise the Surry Commuter had such powers.ballysmate said:
In which case the SC has ruled on a point of law, accept it and move on.elbowloh said:
It's not even about her, it's about rule of law.focuszing723 said:
Why are you wasting your valuable time trying to defend somebody who wouldn't p1$$ on you if you were on fire?elbowloh said:Some people also seem to conveniently forget she was 15 when she left.
🙃0 -
1st point, It was in my opinion.ballysmate said:
Are you saying the SC ruling was political?rick_chasey said:
Lol.ballysmate said:
This isn't a political matter but a legal one.Jezyboy said:
2nd point, my opinion is meaningless. Much like this forum, far less thread.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0
