should she be allowed back in the UK?

Sweep said:
As I understand it, religion is s protected characterist

i have read every post thanks. The only thing missing from the thread is your answers to my questions.
Click to expand...
You posted questions ? All I can see is someone once again “shouting down” other people’s view on a forum ?

Maybe if you construct your questions in a more respectful polite manner and they have relevance you might get a response but certainly not when you “demand” answers
 
At the end of the day it will be the British authorities who make the decision as to whether she will be allowed back or not.

But she's played a very good hand in getting this out in the media - there'll be the usual pressure now put on the Government by the human rights lawyers and organisations.
 
No she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the UK, anyone affiliated or ISIS sympathisers should be given the death penalty in my opinion. It is obvious from her remarks she does not regret her actions and actually believes it's ok for enemies of Islam (non Islamic people) to be beheaded. Shame on them all
 
Liverpoolphil said:
You posted questions ? All I can see is someone once again “shouting down” other people’s view on a forum ?

Maybe if you construct your questions in a more respectful polite manner and they have relevance you might get a response but certainly not when you “demand” answers
Click to expand...
I haven’t shouted down anyone. Get over yourself.
Nor have I demanded answers. I have offered constructive points to support my view to hopefully show why I take the view I do. If my questions have exposed weaknesses in your posts (like we don’t want her back ‘cos she’s a Muslim) and you can’t answer them, then I hope I made you think.
And you might want to take your own advice on posting in a respectful and polite manner.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
You posted questions ? All I can see is someone once again “shouting down” other people’s view on a forum ?

Maybe if you construct your questions in a more respectful polite manner and they have relevance you might get a response but certainly not when you “demand” answers
Click to expand...
OMG hypocrite Phil is at it again.
Are you for real,demanding answers?you have a very short memory.
 
Sweep said:
I haven’t shouted down anyone. Get over yourself.
Nor have I demanded answers. I have offered constructive points to support my view to hopefully show why I take the view I do. If my questions have exposed weaknesses in your posts (like we don’t want her back ‘cos she’s a Muslim) and you can’t answer them, then I hope I made you think.
And you might want to take your own advice on posting in a respectful and polite manner.
Click to expand...

Most of your posts so far in this thread just look like big blobs and rants - it’s hard to see exactly what it is you are asking and also what exactly you think people’s point is

You have said twice that I failed to answer your questions - I’m not sure exactly what your questions are as they seemed to get swallowed up within rants

So what I will do to clarify my point about this young girl

1. Do I want to see her return - nope but if she has committed a crime against the UK I hope she is charged and punished for that

2. Right now she is a British National by birth - so she has by the law the right to come back into the country , the UK authorities then deal with her

3. She has an innocent child who will be born soon and will be an British National - maybe she deserves to be given a chance

4. Do I believe it rehabilitation - yep , if she has been found to have committed no crime then imo she should be given the chance to show to change her views , if not then she stays in a secure facility

5. Do I believe some will judge her based on her religion - yes . Over the decades there have been other people who have been charged and found guilty of being terrorist sympathisers, there haven’t been calls for their British citizenship to be removed , same with many people that have carried out atrocities in the UK and indeed abroad .

6. Has she put shame on the Muslim community - well yes but I’m not sure anyone has said anything different

As I said just because someone isn’t part of a lynch mod and doesn’t want to see someone be killed doesn’t mean they automatically show support

There are still some people who believe in the law , the justice system and being able to change and show compassion - that for me is the difference between us and terrorists

Hopefully I have answered whatever question it you asked - if not god knows what you asked
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All those who think she should be allowed back in......what if she straps on a bomb vest and kills a load of innocent British citizens?
 
drive4show said:
All those who think she should be allowed back in......what if she straps on a bomb vest and kills a load of innocent British citizens?
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll try a little less confrontational approach.
Few if anyone has said they think she should be allowed back in. The point most are making is that the law states it is not a question of desire to admit or otherwise. We are not lawmakers and most likely not law breakers.

However, whatiffery isn't really a helpful tract. What if she rehabilitates and becomes an upstanding member of the community.

There is zero evidence to support either hypothetical scenario.
 
GreiginFife said:
Ok, I'll try a little less confrontational approach.
Few if anyone has said they think she should be allowed back in. The point most are making is that the law states it is not a question of desire to admit or otherwise. We are not lawmakers and most likely not law breakers.

However, whatiffery isn't really a helpful tract. What if she rehabilitates and becomes an upstanding member of the community.

There is zero evidence to support either hypothetical scenario.
Click to expand...
Yes absolutely correct but I'm not convinced that many people have been successfully de-radicalised. Some people are saying that she is entitled to return (which she is) but so far she has shown no remorse. Personally I don't think that decent law abiding citizens should be put at risk.
 
A lot of comments on here have been made based upon " emotion" and not law. Yet her family and others are saying she could be allowed to come back based upon "emotion". So which emotion is right, one or none.
 
GreiginFife said:
Ok, I'll try a little less confrontational approach.
Few if anyone has said they think she should be allowed back in. The point most are making is that the law states it is not a question of desire to admit or otherwise. We are not lawmakers and most likely not law breakers.

However, whatiffery isn't really a helpful tract. What if she rehabilitates and becomes an upstanding member of the community.

There is zero evidence to support either hypothetical scenario.
Click to expand...
Full agreement over the law side, but surely when considering were we stand on this, the whatifferies are the questions we ask ourselves and we can only base them on the information we have at hand, currently from what we’ve seen and heard she has shown no remorse so the “what if she comes back and wears a suicide vest” could be a real possibility and fear in some peoples minds, were as if she’d shown remorse and asked for help for herself etc then maybe some of those saying she shouldn’t be allowed back, may of been a bit more tolerant in their views.
 
drive4show said:
Yes absolutely correct but I'm not convinced that many people have been successfully de-radicalised. Some people are saying that she is entitled to return (which she is) but so far she has shown no remorse. Personally I don't think that decent law abiding citizens should be put at risk.
Click to expand...

Nor do I but neither do I have the certainty to say she will blow people up.

Nor am I saying she is entitled. Entitlement implies deserving whereas I am saying that the law is such that deserving or not she cannot be stopped should she wish.
 
GreiginFife said:
Nor do I but neither do I have the certainty to say she will blow people up.

Nor am I saying she is entitled. Entitlement implies deserving whereas I am saying that the law is such that deserving or not she cannot be stopped should she wish.
Click to expand...
Then we are in full agreement (y)
 
pauldj42 said:
Full agreement over the law side, but surely when considering were we stand on this, the whatifferies are the questions we ask ourselves and we can only base them on the information we have at hand, currently from what we’ve seen and heard she has shown no remorse so the “what if she comes back and wears a suicide vest” could be a real possibility and fear in some peoples minds, were as if she’d shown remorse and asked for help for herself etc then maybe some of those saying she shouldn’t be allowed back, may of been a bit more tolerant in their views.
Click to expand...

As I responded to D4S my position is whatiffery in any situation is pointless without evidence to back up a hypothesis.

I do not believe that she should be welcomed back and believe that she should bear the consequences of her actions. That can be balanced by the fact I know what the law states and am not in a position to change it.

I should add to the above that I don't like it but, unlike many it would seem, I accept that this is the case.
 
GreiginFife said:
As I responded to D4S my position is whatiffery in any situation is pointless without evidence to back up a hypothesis.
Click to expand...
I do disagree with you on this point though because you have to consider every eventuality when making a risk assessment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tashyboy
Should this be in random irritations
Replies
1
Views
688
rulefan
R
Arthur Wedge
VE Day
Replies
16
Views
2K
Doon frae Troon
D
HomerJSimpson
Mill Ride To Be Sold
Replies
8
Views
1K
FuzzyDuck
FuzzyDuck
Tashyboy
  • Locked
Trumps Aberdeen course
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
Billysboots
Billysboots
KenL
GUR bunker, ball embedded on face, local rule in place.
2 3
Replies
44
Views
872
rulefan
R
Top