IS Bride citizenship revoked.

[Oldschool]

The British government are to be congratulated imho.

[Ruckedtobits]

Don't lets go there. This is their problem and there are too many perspectives for any Irish person to comprehensively grasp.

[domhnallj]

The British government are to be congratulated imho.

Not sure about that - you can't make someone stateless but it seems she may qualify for Bangladeshi or Dutch citizen through her mother and husband respectively. They have basically said to (possibly) two other nations that despite her being born and raised in England, she is their problem. Not very nice.

[The Doc]

The British government are to be congratulated imho.

Not sure about that - you can't make someone stateless but it seems she may qualify for Bangladeshi or Dutch citizen through her mother and husband respectively. They have basically said to (possibly) two other nations that despite her being born and raised in England, she is their problem. Not very nice.

Agree - the problem was born, raised and radicalised in the UK and exported to Syria. Not sure they can wash their hands of all responsibility (quite apart from the fact that it's probably illegal to do so). Just because the person is entitled to another passport doesn't mean the UK can leave them stateless. That logic would mean that they could unilaterally remove nationality from any UK citizens with Irish grandparents on the basis that they are entitled to Irish passports.

Flip it around - if there was a Syrian cleric, for example, preaching hate crime in London and the UK decided to deport him. How would they feel if Syria revoked citizenship and said to the UK - sorry, it's your problem, you can't deport. Doesn't make sense

[Dave Cahill]

If a 14/15 year old girl was groomed by an adult for sex would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

If a 14/15 year old girl was brainwashed by a cult, would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

Children are vulnerable to psychological manipulation by adults - never mind paedo/hebephiles or cults- we don't even let toy companies advertise to them without some of the strictest regulation in the industry.

We don't let 14 and 15 year olds have sex, drink, drive, smoke, work full time or do lots of other things because they're too young and immature

Yet it's okay to render someone stateless because as a 14/15 year old they fell victim to the same kind of psychological manipulation that we freely admit exists and works.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Oldschool]

If a 14/15 year old girl was groomed by an adult for sex would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

If a 14/15 year old girl was brainwashed by a cult, would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

Children are vulnerable to psychological manipulation by adults - never mind paedo/hebephiles or cults- we don't even let toy companies advertise to them without some of the strictest regulation in the industry.

We don't let 14 and 15 year olds have sex, drink, drive, smoke, work full time or do lots of other things because they're too young and immature

Yet it's okay to render someone stateless because as a 14/15 year old they fell victim to the same kind of psychological manipulation that we freely admit exists and works.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

You've described the situation but haven't offered any solutions.
It's very easy to sit on the fence and pontificate.
What would you do were it your problem, assuming you agree that she is a problem.

[Dave Cahill]

Shes a now-19 year old victim of abuse. So we treat her like we treat any victim of child abuse. She's not a problem, she's a person

But dehumanizing the victim makes things simpler
It's like breathing with a respirator
It eases the conscience of even the most conscious
And calculating violator
Words can reduce a person to an object
Something more easy to hate
An inanimate entity, completely disposable
No problem to obliterate

[Logorrhea]

Shes a now-19 year old victim of abuse. So we treat her like we treat any victim of child abuse. She's not a problem, she's a person

Surely that logic can be applied to everyone that has done bad things or made bad decisions in the past? I mean if you look back far enough I'm sure you can find the trigger, identify why they behaved in a certain way, absolve them of all responsibility (it was environmental or societal etc) and work towards correcting the behavior.

If someone just gave Hitler a hug at the right time, history could have been very different .

[paddyor]

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/quest ... ima-begum/

[Oldschoolsocks]

If a 14/15 year old girl was groomed by an adult for sex would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

If a 14/15 year old girl was brainwashed by a cult, would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

Children are vulnerable to psychological manipulation by adults - never mind paedo/hebephiles or cults- we don't even let toy companies advertise to them without some of the strictest regulation in the industry.

We don't let 14 and 15 year olds have sex, drink, drive, smoke, work full time or do lots of other things because they're too young and immature

Yet it's okay to render someone stateless because as a 14/15 year old they fell victim to the same kind of psychological manipulation that we freely admit exists and works.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

You've described the situation but haven't offered any solutions.
It's very easy to sit on the fence and pontificate.
What would you do were it your problem, assuming you agree that she is a problem.

fully appreciate the fact that this is a very obvious trolling thread. but the answer is very clear - the UK has a clear duty of care for this young lady and is failing really badly for whatever political reason that suits them right now.

the solution is very clear - UK needs to fulfil their obligations.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

If you were to look at the case on paper then I can see why people would think the UK should help her, but not when you see the interview she did.

I don't doubt that she was brainwashed, and she obviously has an incredibly low IQ, but that interview outweighs everything else IMO.

[Oldschool]

If a 14/15 year old girl was groomed by an adult for sex would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

If a 14/15 year old girl was brainwashed by a cult, would anyone even consider blaming the girl?

Children are vulnerable to psychological manipulation by adults - never mind paedo/hebephiles or cults- we don't even let toy companies advertise to them without some of the strictest regulation in the industry.

We don't let 14 and 15 year olds have sex, drink, drive, smoke, work full time or do lots of other things because they're too young and immature

Yet it's okay to render someone stateless because as a 14/15 year old they fell victim to the same kind of psychological manipulation that we freely admit exists and works.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

You've described the situation but haven't offered any solutions.
It's very easy to sit on the fence and pontificate.
What would you do were it your problem, assuming you agree that she is a problem.

fully appreciate the fact that this is a very obvious trolling thread. but the answer is very clear - the UK has a clear duty of care for this young lady and is failing really badly for whatever political reason that suits them right now.

the solution is very clear - UK needs to fulfil their obligations.

Go and put your own thread about the issue if you think it's throlling.
The whole issue of radicalisation is one of the major threats to our society which whether you or I like is based on Christian values allied to gradual liberalism.
Stick your head in the sand if you want but don't pretend this is just throlling because it suits you to take that very convenient view.
As for duty of care, the state has a equal duty of care to all its' citizens.
PS I suggest you lend the UK your magic wand, explain to them that a simple wave of it and problem solved.

[Logorrhea]

You'd have to consider her surroundings while giving that original interview. I'd imagine the world is a very different place when your in the middle of that sh!t and have been for a long time.

Personally I think people like her are a little scary and I can understand the reluctance within the UK to take her back. I don't think they have a choice though. She should be brought back and managed.

[Oldschoolsocks]

...
Go and put your own thread about the issue if you think it's throlling.
The whole issue of radicalisation is one of the major threats to our society which whether you or I like is based on Christian values allied to gradual liberalism.
Stick your head in the sand if you want but don't pretend this is just throlling because it suits you to take that very convenient view.
As for duty of care, the state has a equal duty of care to all its' citizens.
PS I suggest you lend the UK your magic wand, explain to them that a simple wave of it and problem solved.

1: This is a perfectly good thread, the fact that it fails the troll test does not mean it's not worthy of discussion. The troll test is very easy - would a right minded person actually believe what they have posted. In this case it's quite clear that no right minded person would actually believe that banishment is the correct solution in this case.

2: our society is no longer based on Christian superstitions it is based on the values of the enlightenment which promotes the search for knowledge and truth over suprerstition and blind faith and obedience to the pulpit.

c: my head is not in the sand, anyone born before 1985 knows the full impact of having a religious bureauracy in partial control of the state - and remember only some of ours were fanatics - most were just sheep with a healthy smattering of truly odious individuals. I do not think radicals should be allowed to take control.

4: yes, society does have an equal duty of care to all of it's members - banishment is not a valid solution to this problem.

5: my magic wand is for the sky box and occasionally for scratching that hard to reach place between my shoulder blades.

[Oldschool]

...
Go and put your own thread about the issue if you think it's throlling.
The whole issue of radicalisation is one of the major threats to our society which whether you or I like is based on Christian values allied to gradual liberalism.
Stick your head in the sand if you want but don't pretend this is just throlling because it suits you to take that very convenient view.
As for duty of care, the state has a equal duty of care to all its' citizens.
PS I suggest you lend the UK your magic wand, explain to them that a simple wave of it and problem solved.

1: This is a perfectly good thread, the fact that it fails the troll test does not mean it's not worthy of discussion. The troll test is very easy - would a right minded person actually believe what they have posted. In this case it's quite clear that no right minded person would actually believe that banishment is the correct solution in this case.

2: our society is no longer based on Christian superstitions it is based on the values of the enlightenment which promotes the search for knowledge and truth over suprerstition and blind faith and obedience to the pulpit.

c: my head is not in the sand, anyone born before 1985 knows the full impact of having a religious bureauracy in partial control of the state - and remember only some of ours were fanatics - most were just sheep with a healthy smattering of truly odious individuals. I do not think radicals should be allowed to take control.

4: yes, society does have an equal duty of care to all of it's members - banishment is not a valid solution to this problem.

5: my magic wand is for the sky box and occasionally for scratching that hard to reach place between my shoulder blades.

1. It's likely there is no correct solution only a least worst. Banishment might well be the least worst. In any event it would appear that the majority of UK citizens don't share your view.
2. So thou shat not kill isn't enlightened, it's superstition is it - you knew what I meant.
3. Radicals will take control where there is a vacuum filled by sheep.
4. Banishment - Well I'm waiting to hear your other valid (and workable) solutions. Like try her, find her guilty, throw her in prison and hope that's the end of it, knowing it won't be.
5. You forgot to mention scratching your head when faced with a problem that has no workable solution.

[ronk]

Revoking citizenship is not new but it is extreme and is normally reserved for dissidents, I suppose she counts. USSR did it it Solzhenitsyn. It's a sign of weakness, should they really be afraid of her?

If they had done it when she left it would have been different. If she had been returning to infiltrate she wouldn't have waited until she was suffering in a refugee camp, so the terrorism angle would have carried more weight.

Now it's just politically embarrassing not to hurt her.

[Oldschoolsocks]

...
1: This is a perfectly good thread, the fact that it fails the troll test does not mean it's not worthy of discussion. The troll test is very easy - would a right minded person actually believe what they have posted. In this case it's quite clear that no right minded person would actually believe that banishment is the correct solution in this case.

2: our society is no longer based on Christian superstitions it is based on the values of the enlightenment which promotes the search for knowledge and truth over suprerstition and blind faith and obedience to the pulpit.

c: my head is not in the sand, anyone born before 1985 knows the full impact of having a religious bureauracy in partial control of the state - and remember only some of ours were fanatics - most were just sheep with a healthy smattering of truly odious individuals. I do not think radicals should be allowed to take control.

4: yes, society does have an equal duty of care to all of it's members - banishment is not a valid solution to this problem.

5: my magic wand is for the sky box and occasionally for scratching that hard to reach place between my shoulder blades.

1. It's likely there is no correct solution only a least worst. Banishment might well be the least worst. In any event it would appear that the majority of UK citizens don't share your view. - was there a voxpop on this?
2. So thou shat not kill isn't enlightened, it's superstition is it - you knew what I meant. The only reason we kept that one is because it makes sense - you'll notice we've dropped the ban on working the sabbath and we no longer urge slaves to obey their masters, and that whole thing about women covering their heads - I'm pretty sure that's optional now. Sadly withces are still burned regularly
c. Radicals will take control where there is a vacuum filled by sheep. Yup agree with you here - but as you said in point 1 - if true there's a whole loada sheep whooping, cheering and singing Brittania rules the waves
4. Banishment - Well I'm waiting to hear your other valid (and workable) solutions. Like try her, find her guilty, throw her in prison and hope that's the end of it, knowing it won't be. Not my place, I'm no expert in the legal system - but just for instance we could look at the example of forgiveness for child soldiers? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilit ... d_soldiers
5. You forgot to mention scratching your head when faced with a problem that has no workable solution. i prefer to scratch my 0 in those situations

answers in blue

[paddyor]

If you were to look at the case on paper then I can see why people would think the UK should help her, but not when you see the interview she did.

I don't doubt that she was brainwashed, and she obviously has an incredibly low IQ, but that interview outweighs everything else IMO.

Haven't watched the interview. I agree with JRM said in the clip above. But dispassionately, I think govts should be constrained in what they can and can't do. They must whether they like it or not face up to the risks this poses without going "deux ex machina". It has massive potential to back fire with other countries doing similar in the future. There's also an ethical issue with larger/wealthier countries forcing their problems onto smaller/poorer ones. Australia are doing the same with Fiji at the moment even though the guy has never set foot in Fiji.

Anecdonteally, I've read that allowing them to do this would enable them to revoke citizenship to c7m British people who are elligible for Irish citizenship in the UK. I'm guesssing but I think this is a reason it could ultimately fail in court....which won't matter to minister in question.

[kermischocolate]

Shes a now-19 year old victim of abuse. So we treat her like we treat any victim of child abuse. She's not a problem, she's a person

But dehumanizing the victim makes things simpler
It's like breathing with a respirator
It eases the conscience of even the most conscious
And calculating violator
Words can reduce a person to an object
Something more easy to hate
An inanimate entity, completely disposable
No problem to obliterate

Couldn't agree more.

[blockhead]

Jihadi Jack.
Victim?