Wife of ISIS fighter wants to return to the UK

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess this is the kind of Britain-leading-the-world-by-example we should get used to post-Brexit. Push terrorists onto other nations. Look like a bunch of pussies.

I am a remoaner and that is not my view.

Surely with being a British Citizen, individuals have responsibilities.
Families also bear responsibility.

There is nothing from the parents of these girls. Did they infuse a scepticism/resentment/dislike/antipathy towards the United Kingdom? What is there actual opinion on say Sharia law?
How deep does this go?
At the time of their exit from the UK, the home office made a tremendous effort to prevent them going.

Now, having been subject to comments like "Why don't you go back to Africa if you liked it so much?" and "You dinna belong here" emitted from the outright xenophobic, one would find my attitude strange on the surface. But we, as a family, who moved here have never been in trouble in any shape or form, never abused our 'citizenship', never got involved with any organisation or mixed with anyone who could be regarded as anti-establishment and have also contributed to this society. We have benefited from the national health service, a welfare state and the education system.

Does accepting/repatriating them back, set a precedent of indifference? Does it not underline the privilege of being a UK citizen when you suddenly have no access to the benefits of citizenship because of your own actions?
Is it not better to make the statement "You are a British Citizen, who is afforded x, y and z through being a citizen and abusing that citizenship may compromise your rights to residing here"?

Ben6899

Rick Chasey wrote:

It does mean Sajid sees British citizens with entitlement to a non British nationality as second class citizens as they may have their British citizenship revoked.

I think that's a bit of a leap, Rick

rjsterry

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The racist gammons will remember him for standing firm and expelling an undesirable.

FTFY. The rest of us will just see it as a pathetic attempt to placate the increasingly bigoted and nationalistic right wing in the UK..

IMPOSTER.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 6pm TO AMEND THE QUOTATION YOU HAVE ALTERED AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I WANT A PUBLIC APOLOGY TOO. OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE MODS AND GET YOU KICKED OUT.

Not sure if you're being serious, but if you are, then go for it mate. I made it quite clear that I edited it. Report it now though - if you wait until 6pm, nothing will happen until tomorrow.

Strange from someone accusing people of being thin-skinned in this very thread.

rjsterry

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It does mean Sajid sees British citizens with entitlement to a non British nationality as second class citizens as they may have their British citizenship revoked.

I think that's a bit of a leap, Rick

It's not just Rick that has come to that conclusion. Another British girl in exactly the same situation, but whose parents were British, could not have her citizenship removed. It was discussed in precisely those terms on Today this morning. I forget who the guest was.

It was Lord Anderson who is the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It does mean Sajid sees British citizens with entitlement to a non British nationality as second class citizens as they may have their British citizenship revoked.

I think that's a bit of a leap, Rick

It's not just Rick that has come to that conclusion. Another British girl in exactly the same situation, but whose parents were British, could not have her citizenship removed. It was discussed in precisely those terms on Today this morning. I forget who the guest was.

It was Lord Anderson who is the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Yes it’s rather worrying if it continues.

Ben6899

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It does mean Sajid sees British citizens with entitlement to a non British nationality as second class citizens as they may have their British citizenship revoked.

I think that's a bit of a leap, Rick

It's not just Rick that has come to that conclusion. Another British girl in exactly the same situation, but whose parents were British, could not have her citizenship removed. It was discussed in precisely those terms on Today this morning. I forget who the guest was.

It was Lord Anderson who is the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

Bit of a leap from Lord Anderson as well. It doesn't make anyone a "second class citizen".

Dual citizenship is close to my heart, btw.

rjsterry

Pinno wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I guess this is the kind of Britain-leading-the-world-by-example we should get used to post-Brexit. Push terrorists onto other nations. Look like a bunch of pussies.

I am a remoaner and that is not my view.

Surely with being a British Citizen, individuals have responsibilities.
Families also bear responsibility.

There is nothing from the parents of these girls. Did they infuse a scepticism/resentment/dislike/antipathy towards the United Kingdom? What is there actual opinion on say Sharia law?
How deep does this go?
At the time of their exit from the UK, the home office made a tremendous effort to prevent them going.

Now, having been subject to comments like "Why don't you go back to Africa if you liked it so much?" and "You dinna belong here" emitted from the outright xenophobic, one would find my attitude strange on the surface. But we, as a family, who moved here have never been in trouble in any shape or form, never abused our 'citizenship', never got involved with any organisation or mixed with anyone who could be regarded as anti-establishment and have also contributed to this society. We have benefited from the national health service, a welfare state and the education system.

Does accepting/repatriating them back, set a precedent of indifference? Does it not underline the privilege of being a UK citizen when you suddenly have no access to the benefits of citizenship because of your own actions?
Is it not better to make the statement "You are a British Citizen, who is afforded x, y and z through being a citizen and abusing that citizenship may compromise your rights to residing here"?

Her school, her local authority and the Met all knew in advance that she was being radicalised but for whatever reason didn't inform her parents. After she'd left the country was too late for the HO to get involved.

pinno

rjsterry wrote:

Her school, her local authority and the Met all knew in advance that she was being radicalised but for whatever reason didn't inform her parents. After she'd left the country was too late for the HO to get involved.

Does the state have and is it expected to have the resources to prevent all incidents of potential radicalism?

rick_chasey

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Her school, her local authority and the Met all knew in advance that she was being radicalised but for whatever reason didn't inform her parents. After she'd left the country was too late for the HO to get involved.

Does the state have and is it expected to have the resources to prevent all incidents of potential radicalism?

No it just needs to recognise that its citizens are its problem and if their citizens go and do bad things abroad they should punish them appropriately on return and assist their hosts in helping them bring them to proportionate and reasonable justice.

Alejandrosdog

Rick Chasey wrote:

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Her school, her local authority and the Met all knew in advance that she was being radicalised but for whatever reason didn't inform her parents. After she'd left the country was too late for the HO to get involved.

Does the state have and is it expected to have the resources to prevent all incidents of potential radicalism?

No it just needs to recognise that its citizens are its problem and if their citizens go and do bad things abroad they should punish them appropriately on return and assist their hosts in helping them bring them to proportionate and reasonable justice.

I think the state has assisted the host of this woman to find proportionate and reasonable justice. She lived by the sword, she should die by the sword. Given we have limited resources as a country i cant see any public interest in expending anything more on this woman who supported terrorism at the very least and sees no harm in what she's done. Her own bleating about what she's entitled to doesnt help her cause either.

In any case she's not a British Citizen so not our problem.

rick_chasey

I think if she makes her way back to the U.K. the courts ought to judge that, not you, wouldn’t you say?

Alejandrosdog

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think if she makes her way back to the U.K. the courts ought to judge that, not you, wouldn’t you say?

She has no right of entry so how would you propose they do that? Under which authority would that happen? And as a matter of who's opinon is more valid I would remind you that I live in the UK whereas you do not. The good news though is that there is one possible route to Belgian Citizinship through her terrorist husband and the right to a family life and their child with the bonus of free movement

No doubt you would be happy to have her and her kind (terrorists and their supporters) living in your neighbourhood.

mr_goo

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The racist gammons will remember him for standing firm and expelling an undesirable.

FTFY. The rest of us will just see it as a pathetic attempt to placate the increasingly bigoted and nationalistic right wing in the UK..

IMPOSTER.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 6pm TO AMEND THE QUOTATION YOU HAVE ALTERED AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I WANT A PUBLIC APOLOGY TOO. OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE MODS AND GET YOU KICKED OUT.

Not sure if you're being serious, but if you are, then go for it mate. I made it quite clear that I edited it. Report it now though - if you wait until 6pm, nothing will happen until tomorrow.

Can't see any indication where you've said you altered my comment. Don't like tone of your commentary. So done as you've suggested.

Ben6899

Alejandrosdog wrote:

She has no right of entry so how would you propose they do that? Under which authority would that happen? And as a matter of who's opinon is more valid I would remind you that I live in the UK whereas you do not. The good news though is that there is one possible route to Belgian Citizinship through her terrorist husband and the right to a family life and their child with the bonus of free movement

No doubt you would be happy to have her and her kind (terrorists and their supporters) living in your neighbourhood.

Rick lives in the UK.
Her husband is Dutch.
It's spelt citizenship.

Ben6899

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The racist gammons will remember him for standing firm and expelling an undesirable.

FTFY. The rest of us will just see it as a pathetic attempt to placate the increasingly bigoted and nationalistic right wing in the UK..

IMPOSTER.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 6pm TO AMEND THE QUOTATION YOU HAVE ALTERED AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I WANT A PUBLIC APOLOGY TOO. OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE MODS AND GET YOU KICKED OUT.

Not sure if you're being serious, but if you are, then go for it mate. I made it quite clear that I edited it. Report it now though - if you wait until 6pm, nothing will happen until tomorrow.

Can't see any indication where you've said you altered my comment. Don't like tone of your commentary. So done as you've suggested.

Give it a rest, lad.

Dorset_Boy

Anyone got any idea as to how she might actually return to the UK?
The UK has no consular services in Syria.
The UK has no extradition agreement with Syria or the group holding her.
She stole her sister's passport in order to leave the UK so has no legal travel documentation.
Presumably she has no access to hard currency.
The British Government aren't going send in a crack SAS squad to extract her - and the UK doesn't do rendition.

Maybe her parents will set up a crowd funding site to then hire some mercenaries to get her out of the detention camp...

There are a further 350-500 IS fighters still to return to the UK too......

surrey_commuter

Alejandrosdog wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

question is though, smash or no smash?

just asking for a friend so don't shout at me.

Yes until I see her teeth

only possible if she has the neck of an owl.

Chapeau

Matthewfalle

Ben6899 wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

She has no right of entry so how would you propose they do that? Under which authority would that happen? And as a matter of who's opinon is more valid I would remind you that I live in the UK whereas you do not. The good news though is that there is one possible route to Belgian Citizinship through her terrorist husband and the right to a family life and their child with the bonus of free movement

No doubt you would be happy to have her and her kind (terrorists and their supporters) living in your neighbourhood.

Rick lives in the UK.
Her husband is Dutch.
It's spelt citizenship.

Ben is correct.
Alejandro is not very good at this but s/he does seem to like a good rant.

imposter2.0

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The racist gammons will remember him for standing firm and expelling an undesirable.

FTFY. The rest of us will just see it as a pathetic attempt to placate the increasingly bigoted and nationalistic right wing in the UK..

IMPOSTER.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 6pm TO AMEND THE QUOTATION YOU HAVE ALTERED AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I WANT A PUBLIC APOLOGY TOO. OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE MODS AND GET YOU KICKED OUT.

Not sure if you're being serious, but if you are, then go for it mate. I made it quite clear that I edited it. Report it now though - if you wait until 6pm, nothing will happen until tomorrow.

Can't see any indication where you've said you altered my comment. Don't like tone of your commentary. So done as you've suggested.

'FTFY' is a well-known acronym for editing someone's comments. Well-known by everyone on the internet but you, it would seem. I find it utterly hilarious that you don't like my tone. Can only assume you are on a wind-up and you will fess up to it all being a joke with your next post.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The racist gammons will remember him for standing firm and expelling an undesirable.

FTFY. The rest of us will just see it as a pathetic attempt to placate the increasingly bigoted and nationalistic right wing in the UK..

IMPOSTER.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 6pm TO AMEND THE QUOTATION YOU HAVE ALTERED AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I WANT A PUBLIC APOLOGY TOO. OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE MODS AND GET YOU KICKED OUT.

Not sure if you're being serious, but if you are, then go for it mate. I made it quite clear that I edited it. Report it now though - if you wait until 6pm, nothing will happen until tomorrow.

Can't see any indication where you've said you altered my comment. Don't like tone of your commentary. So done as you've suggested.

You seem to be hyper sensitive to people thinking you are a racist. You should look inwards rather than outwards for the cause of that problem.

Also get a grip and some pride.

rick_chasey

Ben6899 wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

She has no right of entry so how would you propose they do that? Under which authority would that happen? And as a matter of who's opinon is more valid I would remind you that I live in the UK whereas you do not. The good news though is that there is one possible route to Belgian Citizinship through her terrorist husband and the right to a family life and their child with the bonus of free movement

No doubt you would be happy to have her and her kind (terrorists and their supporters) living in your neighbourhood.

Rick lives in the UK.
Her husband is Dutch.
It's spelt citizenship.

There’s so much wrong in Alejandro’s post it’s hard to know where to start tbh.

Though he seems to be weirdly familiar with me given he joined the forum two days ago.

coopster_the_1st

So we have terrorist sympathisers within the cycling community now.

Great going on taking this site to a new low with your idiotic and dangerous views.

surrey_commuter

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The racist gammons will remember him for standing firm and expelling an undesirable.

FTFY. The rest of us will just see it as a pathetic attempt to placate the increasingly bigoted and nationalistic right wing in the UK..

IMPOSTER.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 6pm TO AMEND THE QUOTATION YOU HAVE ALTERED AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I WANT A PUBLIC APOLOGY TOO. OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE MODS AND GET YOU KICKED OUT.

Not sure if you're being serious, but if you are, then go for it mate. I made it quite clear that I edited it. Report it now though - if you wait until 6pm, nothing will happen until tomorrow.

Can't see any indication where you've said you altered my comment. Don't like tone of your commentary. So done as you've suggested.

'FTFY' is a well-known acronym for editing someone's comments. Well-known by everyone on the internet but you, it would seem. I find it utterly hilarious that you don't like my tone. Can only assume you are on a wind-up and you will fess up to it all being a joke with your next post.

Are you sure? It makes more sense if you read it as fick that and fick you.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So we have terrorist sympathisers within the cycling community now.

Great going on taking this site to a new low with your idiotic and dangerous views.

You should check your contract, would hate to see you fired for straying off topic. Your predecessor was fired for being a complete idiot who used emojis like a 12 year old girl.

imposter2.0

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Are you sure? It makes more sense if you read it as fick that and fick you.

Nah, that would be 'FTAFY'...

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

So we have terrorist sympathisers within the cycling community now.

What? We can't have that. Name and shame these dangerous individuals now..!

Pross

rjsterry wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It does mean Sajid sees British citizens with entitlement to a non British nationality as second class citizens as they may have their British citizenship revoked.

I think that's a bit of a leap, Rick

It's not just Rick that has come to that conclusion. Another British girl in exactly the same situation, but whose parents were British, could not have her citizenship removed. It was discussed in precisely those terms on Today this morning. I forget who the guest was.

It was Lord Anderson who is the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

It's nothing to do with them being second class citizens though is it? I suspect he would remove the citizenship of the second girl if he were legally able to so he is just exploiting a loophole. I think we'd be better off letting her come back (but not assisting her in doing so) and then putting her on trial but the Government appear to be working within the constraints of international and UK law to prevent her coming back at all.

Pross

Imposter wrote:

Alejandrosdog wrote:

I think you’re spectacularly confused. Isis and the kkk are entirely different, different crimes, different objectives, different locations different ideologies.

There is no difference. Both organisations are fascist, authoritarian monotheistic regimes who pursue their objectives through violence. Leaving aside their bullshit religions, their ideologies are fundamentally the same.

There is a difference and quite an important one. ISIS is a proscribed organisation whilst as far as I can tell the KKK isn't. That's what presumably allows the Government to satisfy the other requirements of revoking citizenship.

darkhairedlord

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

The racist gammons will remember him for standing firm and expelling an undesirable.

FTFY. The rest of us will just see it as a pathetic attempt to placate the increasingly bigoted and nationalistic right wing in the UK..

IMPOSTER.

YOU HAVE UNTIL 6pm TO AMEND THE QUOTATION YOU HAVE ALTERED AND ATTRIBUTED TO ME. I WANT A PUBLIC APOLOGY TOO. OR I WILL REPORT YOU TO THE MODS AND GET YOU KICKED OUT.

Not sure if you're being serious, but if you are, then go for it mate. I made it quite clear that I edited it. Report it now though - if you wait until 6pm, nothing will happen until tomorrow.

Can't see any indication where you've said you altered my comment. Don't like tone of your commentary. So done as you've suggested.

'FTFY' is a well-known acronym for editing someone's comments. Well-known by everyone on the internet but you, it would seem. I find it utterly hilarious that you don't like my tone. Can only assume you are on a wind-up and you will fess up to it all being a joke with your next post.

Are you sure? It makes more sense if you read it as fick that and fick you.

TBF, the revised version is almost exactly the same as the original and entirely the same in meaning. I'm not sure why it warranted a FTFY in the first place, clarified would perhaps be more accurate than fixed.

Pross

These are the actual requirements for revoking citizenship:

(a) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation is conducive to the
public good because the person, when a British citizen, “has conducted him
or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of
the United Kingdom” or associated territories; and
(b) the Secretary of State has “reasonable grounds for believing that the person
is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, to
become a national of such country or territory”.

There's a right to appeal that I assume will be taken in which case the Secretary of State is going to have to demonstrate how her actions were seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. Is being a member / supporter of a proscribed organisation enough? On point b) they might have an issue in Bangladesh provided a statement that would not offer her citizenship and it would seem justifiable for them to do so when we've decided she is such a risk to our country that we won't allow her back. It's the human equivalent of us shipping all our toxic waste off to countries with less stringent regulations.