Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Ross
  • 12,427 comments
  • 497,523 views

How will you vote in the 2019 UK General Election?

  • The Brexit Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Change UK/The Independent Group

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 11 27.5%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 3 7.5%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 11 27.5%

  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
He's addressing a possibility, not making a statement of fact. And this affects national security how exactly?
He gave a sceniaro with no mention of there being a different sceniaro of possibility then concluded that they should be watched(as in a terror watch list?) not being detained would be a threat to national security, yes.

What else is there to address, I said all this before.
 
Already addressed the same question.

No, you didn't. You said "I didn't address that, he claimed a blanket term that didn't specify just this case. Watching doesn't equal detainment either, unless that is what he meant", and "that is a Blanket assumption that the process involves good intentions" but neither of those answers the question I asked - what's the elevated national security risk from her being in the UK rather than Syria?
 
Looks like a "what if?" to me but I'll let @Lizard answer for himself if he so chooses.
It's clearly a possibility, but he didn't give another sceniaro, so I answered that possibility.

No, you didn't. You said "I didn't address that, he claimed a blanket term that didn't specify just this case. Watching doesn't equal detainment either, unless that is what he meant", and "that is a Blanket assumption that the process involves good intentions" but neither of those answers the question I asked - what's the elevated national security risk from her being in the UK rather than Syria?
You asked a previously irrelevant question that I said I wasn't addressing in the first place, look at everything I have said.
The real question I had was based on @Lizard statement they should be watched. Nothing about the current situation with that particular case, because his sceniaro was more broad then that and didn't exactly point to that case in particular.
 
It's clearly a possibility, but he didn't give another sceniaro, so I answered that possibility.
By making a blanket assumption. To me it looks like he's saying that the Home Office have to consider the other possibility and can't simply turn them away at the door no matter how much many of us may want to. It sounds less to me like an assumption than an assertion that they have to investigate the facts, and don't have the luxury of us keyboard warriors to make a snap decision to bar entry.
You asked a previously irrelevant question that I said I wasn't addressing in the first place, look at everything I have said.
I think he did. You said @Lizard was fine with risking national security. @TenEightyOne asked how national security was affected by her being in the UK. That sounds relevant to me.
 
By making a blanket assumption. To me it looks like he's saying that the Home Office have to consider the other possibility and can't simply turn them away at the door no matter how much many of us may want to. It sounds less to me like an assumption than an assertion that they have to investigate the facts, and don't have the luxury of us keyboard warriors to make a snap decision to bar entry.

I think he did. You said @Lizard was fine with risking national security. @TenEightyOne asked how national security was affected by her being in the UK. That sounds relevant to me.
It's a forum so anyone can get involved in a discussion I get that, but this would of been easier to resolve if @Lizard was the one to respond.

For the record I have no issue with her being detained in UK.
 
It is inherent in the publicity she gets when she returns which will turn the heads of some.
I mean, her case is already public. If she’s banned from the country she’ll become a marter with her unborn child. Which only helps nurture the underground extremist networks.
If she’s returned it’ll be PC gone mad and the U.K. government being forced to accept terrorists. Which will help feed the White supremesists(?) groups that are already fairly empowered thanks to Brexit.

Not only that, but the cost to the tax payer of doing either of these things is large.

Seems to me, that her and other former ISIS members should be all charged for war crimes, similar to how the Nazis were charged. Her child can be taken into care
 
You're saying there is no impact to national security by her and her child being here?

That's what you asked me. I said no. Then you reply with this:

Wut.

- She still actively supports the ISIS regime
- She can indoctrinate her child in an area, Bethnal Green, that overwhelmingly wants to bring her back (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...a-begum-come-back-say-bethnal-green-residents)
- She can either plot attacks or funnel money to the ISIS regime (https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-jihadi-bride-who-married-5042791)

I'm not sure what was to misunderstand in my answer? Can you find where I've said that she poses no impact to national security by being here?
 
That's what you asked me. I said no. Then you reply with this:



I'm not sure what was to misunderstand in my answer? Can you find where I've said that she poses no impact to national security by being here?
My mistake, but doesn't that contradict your statement?

what's the elevated national security risk from her being in the UK rather than Syria?
 
what's the elevated national security risk from her being in the UK rather than Syria?

In other words: how is there a greater risk with her being in a UK prison than there is if she's in Syria (et al) and free to communicate, spread propaganda and so on?
 
Someone who said she was:

"thirsty for the Islamic state’ and that her children were born to serve ‘the mujahideen"


I appreciate your source but she was a Jihadi bride who, in your article moved to Egypt and supported Islamic movements.

The article says "Both she and her husband were extremely devout. They strongly supported Islamic movements in general, which led them to move to Egypt. By 2013, they had three young children and a fourth on the way. Her husband insisted they go to Syria, where he wanted to join the Islamic State.

Joya resisted, saying she believed the group was too extreme.

"I just wasn't prepared to die for Syria. And of course, I didn't want my children to die for Syria either," she said. Her husband persisted. With great reluctance, she says she agreed to go for two weeks. When her husband then decided to stay, she fled with the kids. She called U.S. authorities and asked to be allowed back into the U.S. She was, and still is, a British citizen, but her four children are American. "Finally they said, 'OK. We want you back. You can come back, you know, on the condition that you tell us everything you know.' And I was absolutely happy to help because I wanted to get away from him," Joya said. She moved back with her in-laws in Texas, cooperated with U.S. officials by providing information on the extremists, and was never charged with a crime.
"

The quote you give only comes back to The Daily Mail, I can't find it anywhere else (except aggregators of their original 2017 story). Her story still seems somewhat different in the amount of will/intent shown in visiting Syria... but of course I'm sure we'd all welcome a non-Daily-Mail original quote if you think differently.
 
So, Labour are imploding then...
Seven MPs decide they can no longer effect change on the organisation of which they are a member from within it, and decide to remove themselves in order to create their own better way ahead with their own rules, free from the constraints of the larger organisation, at the potential expense of their own relevance...


I think my analogy meter just exploded.
 
Fewer than five hours after these 7 MPs break away from the Labour Party, one of them is publicly apologising for making a racially insensitive comment on national television. Surely a record?

Please forgive me if I fail to see this as a new centrist "revolution".
 
Seven MPs decide they can no longer effect change on the organisation of which they are a member from within it, and decide to remove themselves in order to create their own better way ahead with their own rules, free from the constraints of the larger organisation, at the potential expense of their own relevance...

I'm sure they understand the enormity of that too (with the exception of the upstanding Member for Penistone) and I can see that something had to break inside the party. As much as I sometimes admire the thumping socialist rhetoric of Corbyn it's still strident student-level politics, he hasn't figured out how to turn that into a form of viable, national, parliamentary governance. At a time when Parliament is figuratively, perhaps almost literally, on its knees he's taking a far-too-small improvement in the polls to vindicate his position and it simply isn't washing with some of the backbenches. This breakaway is perhaps too little and far too late but maybe we'll see something really change in Labour and see them become a credible force for opposition.

Fewer than five hours after these 7 MPs break away from the Labour Party, one of them is publicly apologising for making a racially insensitive comment on national television. Surely a record?

Penistone. I knew it would be before I even looked :D

Please forgive me if I fail to see this as a new centrist "revolution".

It is. It's just not going to be a very effective one unless more Labour members put their money where their mouths are.
 
Some are saying that it is naïve to accept a government revoking citizenship but she hasn't shown any remorse, only an intent to return. The lack of remorse is frightningly naïve and quite dangerous.

I don't really know what to think myself, but if you move abroad to fight or at least live within an enemy terrorist cell and then cry wolf with no regrets, what were you expecting? I can't blame them FCO for taking this step and making this decision.

You make your bed, you lie in it.
 
Back