Shamima Begum refused return to UK

Londons_Moggie said:
I’m not underestimating anything. You’re just making up things in your head for some reason unbeknownst to me
Click to expand...

No, you made a daft comment that Shamima Begum would become a terrorist mastermind and I pointed out why that was far fetched. You then proceeded to play ignorant when called out on it.
 
BoroMart said:
In this is where same_as_before would agree with you.....if it was a Labour Minister making the decision.

Personally I don't care what colour rosette they wear, I care about the morals and what it says about our nation and our values. It doesn't say anything good.
Click to expand...
Imagine the vitriol if it was Dianne Abbot who had taken that decision😲😡
 
Terryterrycooper said:
has she ever said sorry, or that she regrets her decision, or offered names of her leaders ?
Genuine question, I don’t know
Click to expand...
Her lack of regret or empathy for the victims of the Manchester bombing definitely didn't help her case - having said that, I suppose she has to be careful what she says, bearing in mind where and who she is living with.
 
Terryterrycooper said:
has she ever said sorry, or that she regrets her decision, or offered names of her leaders ?
Genuine question, I don’t know
Click to expand...
Would you expect the [every] Irish citizens of this country to "apologise" for the death of British soldiers in Armagh, or [all] the English apologise to the Irish for the murder of 13 innocent unarmed civilians by British Paratroopers in Derry on "Bloody Sunday"?

Hows about the Prime Minister Tony Bliar - who sanctioned the murder and wounding of unarmed civilians by bombing and invading a Sovereign state, who had never threatened the UK or its "allies"?

The narrative underlying Shamima Begum is typically anti-muslim, racist and anti-democratic: portraying the UK and its imperialist policies as "legitimate" and "justified". Essentially legitimising the UK and its "friends" selling arms to rogue states, whilst demonising those who resist.
 
Wiseman_Vaughn said:
It’s a tricky one - she left to join a death cult but as far as I am aware, didn’t kill anybody. The courts have decided that she can’t come back.

then we have actual terrorists with similar backgrounds to her, who have committed mass murder on our streets and they have every right to remain here, albeit in prison
Click to expand...
Thats not verry accurate, the court's ruling was that she didn't need to be in the UK to aid in her defence. That is all the ruling said. It said nothing in judgement about whether she can legally come back to the UK that has not been ruled on.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
No, you made a daft comment that Shamima Begum would become a terrorist mastermind and I pointed out why that was far fetched. You then proceeded to play ignorant when called out on it.
Click to expand...
You’re again inventing stuff that hasn’t happened. I made a hypothetical point of what she may be able to do should she come back. Nowhere have I suggested she is or would be a terrorist mastermind. You have not called me out on anything and I’m not playing ignorant. You are inventing a narrative that hasn’t happened for some strange reason
 
Wiseman_Vaughn said:
Her lack of regret or empathy for the victims of the Manchester bombing definitely didn't help her case - having said that, I suppose she has to be careful what she says, bearing in mind where and who she is living with.
Click to expand...
Her case has nothing to do with whether she apologises or not, it is only whether Patel had the right to unilaterrally revoke someones citizenship because she [patel] decided that it was OK to do so.

Her alleged crimes are neither here nor there. The only legal question is "Can the home office revoke someones citizenship without a due legal proceeding" The answer has to be no. Even if the court decides that her cirizenship can be revoked, that is thier decision to make, not Patels.

Where she is housed, if she returns, whether she committed crimes, whether you find her abhorrent as Patel would like you to are all imaterial and aimed at whipping up anti-muslim sentiment and garnerring votes for a "strong" government.

Anyone who doesn't find it scary that a government minister "believes" she has this power, isn't really paying attention.
 
Laughing said:
Her case has nothing to do with whether she apologises or not, it is only whether Patel had the right to unilaterrally revoke someones citizenship because she [patel] decided that it was OK to do so.

Her alleged crimes are neither here nor there. The only legal question is "Can the home office revoke someones citizenship without a due legal proceeding" The answer has to be no. Even if the court decides that her cirizenship can be revoked, that is thier decision to make, not Patels.

Where she is housed, if she returns, whether she committed crimes, whether you find her abhorrent as Patel would like you to are all imaterial and aimed at whipping up anti-muslim sentiment and garnerring votes for a "strong" government.

Anyone who doesn't find it scary that a government minister "believes" she has this power, isn't really paying attention.
Click to expand...
It was Sajid Javid that took the original decision not Patel.
 
Londons_Moggie said:
You’re again inventing stuff that hasn’t happened. I made a hypothetical point of what she may be able to do should she come back. Nowhere have I suggested she is or would be a terrorist mastermind. You have not called me out on anything and I’m not playing ignorant. You are inventing a narrative that hasn’t happened for some strange reason
Click to expand...
No, not the case. I pointed out how far fetched your 'hypothetical point' was and you doubled down to the pony where you showed you have no understanding of how the security services function.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
No, not the case. I pointed out how far fetched your 'hypothetical point' was and you doubled down to the pony where you showed you have no understanding of how the security services function.
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely correct I don’t have a great insight into how the security services work. Neither do you. They tend to keep that to themselves for the purposes of security. Clues in the name. I think they do an amazing job under difficult circumstances.
 
Londons_Moggie said:
You’re absolutely correct I don’t have a great insight into how the security services work. Neither do you. They tend to keep that to themselves for the purposes of security. Clues in the name. I think they do an amazing job under difficult circumstances.
Click to expand...
I did my years work placement from Uni at GCHQ, the pay is terrrible but they do a very good job under immense pressure
 
Laughing said:
I did my years work placement from Uni at GCHQ, the pay is terrrible but they do a very good job under immense pressure
Click to expand...
That must of been interesting. We only tend to hear about the mistakes that are made but we rarely hear about the great work they do on a daily basis
 
Londons_Moggie said:
You’re absolutely correct I don’t have a great insight into how the security services work. Neither do you. They tend to keep that to themselves for the purposes of security. Clues in the name. I think they do an amazing job under difficult circumstances.
Click to expand...

Odd. You obviously don't hold them in that high a regard, given you think they'd allow a known terrorist to organise an attack following her readmission to the country.
 
Laughing said:
I did my years work placement from Uni at GCHQ, the pay is terrrible but they do a very good job under immense pressure
Click to expand...
It was interesting, my security clearance was pretty low, as you can imagine, but when comms are flagged the place becomes a cauldron. I was offered a job when graduating, and at Mi5 too, but their pay scales are awful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top