Off Topic A controversial question!

[invermeremike]

I have just read that one of the three young girls who decided that the war torn life in Syria was what she, and her two friends, wanted which also included support for you know who. Now she has the cheek to say she wants to return to her normal life in the U.K. and is asking the government to help her. My obvious question is would you allow her to return or would you totally exclude her from re-entry?

I seem to remember that the British government made a commitment to it's citizens many years ago that any person travelling to a destination, for a specific period of time, and known to harbour terrorist sympathies would never be allowed to return. Has that commitment ever been met or do the politicians hide behind the usual human rights banner rather than standing their ground? The only human rights are those of true British citizens who do not wish to destroy the country, or any other, from within.

Yes or No?

 

[AshtonRed]

I have just read that one of the three young girls who decided that the war torn life in Syria was what she, and her two friends, wanted which also included support for you know who. Now she has the cheek to say she wants to return to her normal life in the U.K. and is asking the government to help her. My obvious question is would you allow her to return or would you totally exclude her from re-entry?

I seem to remember that the British government made a commitment to it's citizens many years ago that any person travelling to a destination, for a specific period of time, and known to harbour terrorist sympathies would never be allowed to return. Has that commitment ever been met or do the politicians hide behind the usual human rights banner rather than standing their ground? The only human rights are those of true British citizens who do not wish to destroy the country, or any other, from within.

Yes or No?

harsh but no.

Their intent is murderous, I’m afraid she made her bed.

 

[invermeremike]

I hope she is banned for life and how strange is it that your supposed allies in the E.U have been assisting these kinds of people reach the shores of England for years without offering them sanctuary within their borders. How many countries do you have to cross to reach the English Channel from Iran, and you mean to tell me that none of those countries would accept them? Perhaps they have heard about the U.K. being a soft touch on all levels.

Sad state of affairs despite the fact that there are many other E.U. members who have taken large numbers of supposed refugees and I'm sure that the violence perpetrated within those countries, and England, is directly proportional to the numbers accepted.

 

[Cliftonville]

She has no regret for her actions.

She can have a lifetime outside of the UK to reflect on the advantages she rejected to swear allegiance to … A caliphate, murdering people of any religion, non religion, gays … There is no place for her in this Country.

 

[johngalleyfan2]

there are many people in this and mostly European countries that have suffered much anguish at personal losses and having the news / seen the news or reading about the atrocities over the past 4 or 5 years 10 times worse than I'll killya !
in her interview she states she was not fazed by the heads dumped in bins of the people they mutilated .. this points to the fact that she was comfortable with her exisitence .. shows no sign of remorse and now wants to come back here to sponge off the goodwill of upright british citizens as if nothing had happened...really ……
S T A Y . A W A Y

 

[smhbcfc]

She has no regret for her actions.
.

I found the interview astounding - absolutely no remorse

If it's legal then she should not be able to return

 

[Loathsneyd]

Yes I think the fact that she has stated that she has no regrets is the clincher here. If she has come back full of remorse for her actions as a 15 year old I think she would have got some sympathy, who hasn't done stupid things at 15?

 

[BCFCRob]

Yeah I don't know where I stand here. I mean, she obviously shouldn't be allowed back, but it does set a bit of a dangerous precedent. What about those who were forced to go and those who went under extreme duress? It's a bit of a dodgy situation really.

In reality the Government have to let them back. International law dictates that there's basically sod all they can do (nothing to do with the EU by the way...).

 

[johngalleyfan2]

e. I mean, she obviously shouldn't be allowed back, but it does set a bit of a dangerous precedent. What about those who were forced to go and those who went under extreme duress? It's a bit of a dodgy situation really.

who were forced to go and kill mutilate torture and of course enjoy smashing into oblivion untold relics of religion for the fun of it .. most of these relics had survived the atrocities of wars before these butchers came on the scene …. I cannot remember seeing any instances of forced peeps but there were a few where some of a family went and others stayed behind!

 

[BCFCRob]

who were forced to go and kill mutilate torture and of course enjoy smashing into oblivion untold relics of religion for the fun of it .. most of these relics had survived the atrocities of wars before these butchers came on the scene …. I cannot remember seeing any instances of forced peeps but there were a few where some of a family went and others stayed behind!

To be fair I'm pretty sure loads of women were forced to go. And were subsequently abused and raped and stuff. I'm not saying this woman was, she doesn't mention it, but there will be some who were forced and what are we supposed to do to those? Let them go back and die? It's pretty harsh.

Like I said, this woman clearly doesn't deserve to come back, at all. But it's a dangerous precedent and legally we're not allowed to stop her coming back anyway.

 

[invermeremike]

Change the law to accommodate the loopholes that allow this kind of scum back to a country where they clearly flouted the boundaries of humanity whilst away. Some countries I believe reserve the right to strip people of their citizenship, especially if they obtained it from overseas rather than through birth, and although it does appear controversial in a legal sense perhaps it's time to stop being mister nice guys and stand up for your rights and not hers.

 

[BCFCRob]

Change the law to accommodate the loopholes that allow this kind of scum back to a country where they clearly flouted the boundaries of humanity whilst away. Some countries I believe reserve the right to strip people of their citizenship, especially if they obtained it from overseas rather than through birth, and although it does appear controversial in a legal sense perhaps it's time to stop being mister nice guys and stand up for your rights and not hers.

I've no idea how that works to be honest mate but I'd be amazed if we're actually allowed to do that.

 

[RedorDead]

Yeah I don't know where I stand here. I mean, she obviously shouldn't be allowed back, but it does set a bit of a dangerous precedent. What about those who were forced to go and those who went under extreme duress? It's a bit of a dodgy situation really.

In reality the Government have to let them back. International law dictates that there's basically sod all they can do (nothing to do with the EU by the way...).

I think you can safely say that she wasn’t forced to go. So the question is should SHE be allowed back here. And the answer to that has to be no.
Even as you say some are forced but how many say they were forced, but do you believe them, or are they taken the chance as it’s just a rue to cause some sort of act of terror when back?
Sorry mate you do talk a lot of sense and get shouted down for it but this time you’ve got to think about the consequences, if it just a con.
She made her choice yes young but it’s like saying to the Bulger murderers you was young so don’t worry about it.
And before people say it’s not the same, I bet she’s been involved in killing of innocent people.

 

[BCFCRob]

I think you can safely say that she wasn’t forced to go. So the question is should SHE be allowed back here. And the answer to that has to be no.
Even as you say some are forced but how many say they were forced, but do you believe them, or are they taken the chance as it’s just a rue to cause some sort of act of terror when back?
Sorry mate you do talk a lot of sense and get shouted down for it but this time you’ve got to think about the consequences, if it just a con.
She made her choice yes young but it’s like saying to the Bulger murderers you was young so don’t worry about it.
And before people say it’s not the same, I bet she’s been involved in killing of innocent people.

Mate I completely agree she has to go. I'm not doubting that in any way at all. She should not be allowed back in. I didn't say otherwise either if you read my post.

My point is the precedent it sets. Sure, she has no remorse and wants us all dead, etc. But what about the next girl who is forced over and gets raped every day? It happens and it's effing disgusting. It's not a clear cut situation.

Just to reiterate again. I'm not defending her. She should not be allowed back here (although legally she obviously is allowed).

 

[johngalleyfan2]

I think you can safely say that she wasn’t forced to go. So the question is should SHE be allowed back here. And the answer to that has to be no.
Even as you say some are forced but how many say they were forced, but do you believe them, or are they taken the chance as it’s just a rue to cause some sort of act of terror when back?
Sorry mate you do talk a lot of sense and get shouted down for it but this time you’ve got to think about the consequences, if it just a con.
She made her choice yes young but it’s like saying to the Bulger murderers you was young so don’t worry about it.
And before people say it’s not the same, I bet she’s been involved in killing of innocent people.

It has been all over the news 3 girls left for the "promised land" how they evaded being stopped on route etc … at 15 the only thing that stops them from knowing right from wrong is the time element we attach to a point in a persons life .. at 13 some have the mental attitude of 17 y olds ; at 15 some have the attitude of 13 y olds etc etc these 3 were well advanced of the 15 years they are tagged with .. they planned and knew what to do and almost where to go... caught on camera a couple of times .. no chaperones /guides … and now NO remorse . recipe for disaster, I bet the pregnancy was to give "the pity aspect " to her wish!

 

[AshtonRed]

She chose to go, and has no regrets. Had she been forced to go ,or even if she regretted her decision, especially bearing in mind her young age, then you could possibly make an argument for allowing her back , but as neither is the case she shouldn’t be allowed back.

 

[johngalleyfan2]

observations..
just heard on the radio that the minister in charge [ Javed?? stated he is aware of the implications and is standing by the what has ruled for such cases another MP stated categorically she should be brought forwith …!!!
besides this forum, my social circle extends via hobbies and interests over 5 very different groups, the topic is of course "the headline topic" of conversation and some quite heated comments from those you would least expect it have been forthcoming, and so far not one person has said bring her back, in fact there seems to be a concensus of opinion that doing so would result in riots /protests which would make Brexit look like a picnic on a warm Sunday afternoon on the river bank!

 

[BCFCRob]

I don't think it would result in riots at all to be honest, but equally, I also don't know a single person who thinks she should be allowed back. But that isn't what the law says.

 

[invermeremike]

Nevertheless I think the time to make the stand is way overdue and political correctness can't be part of the solution. Frankly I have my doubts as to whether the U.K. government has the balls to finally do the right thing and rid your shores of this menace. Perhaps part of the Brexit referendum made people believe that leaving the E.U would enable you to deal with what is clearly a major issue, but unless the politicians waiver on their resolve and duty to eliminate known terror sympathisers from the U.K, then the problem will continue ad infinitum.

I see major court time ahead and lot's of taxpayer's money being wasted on wasters.

 

[BCFCRob]

Nevertheless I think the time to make the stand is way overdue and political correctness can't be part of the solution. Frankly I have my doubts as to whether the U.K. government has the balls to finally do the right thing and rid your shores of this menace. Perhaps part of the Brexit referendum made people believe that leaving the E.U would enable you to deal with what is clearly a major issue, but unless the politicians waiver on their resolve and duty to eliminate known terror sympathisers from the U.K, then the problem will continue ad infinitum.

I see major court time ahead and lot's of taxpayer's money being wasted on wasters.

Nothing to do with Brexit mate and nothing to do with our laws. I think it's international laws that mean we have to take her back in. Could be wrong of course, but it will be something to do with ensuring that no person ever becomes country-less, so to speak. Which makes sense.

Just bring her back and stick her in prison for joining ISIS in my opinion. Gets her off our streets and it's not worth the hassle battling with international law.