leave her there

Sadly the good die young.

 

Denying an ISIS bride and consequently her baby’s rights of their citizenship is not the same level as cutting her and her baby’s head off in the street, is it?

Would you rather be made stateless or be burned alive in your home with your entire family, after being raped?

In all seriousness here I do see both sides of this argument, there is a case for her to be allowed back and dealt with via the official channels, but I disagree that it’s the only way to deal with somebody (not just Shambimba) who has actively gone and participated within a terror cell, that have been slicing people up, setting them on fire, drowning them in cages, raping children and blowing up arena’s full of kids. I think it’s perfectly acceptable to turn our back on them and say ‘You deal with your own mess’.

 

Depends if you want us to obey laws or not. If not, it’s a dangerous path IMO.

Wasn’t it you who went mental at Stan for asking a question like that?

 

To be fair to Javid he’s rescinded the British citizenship of two more ISIS wives. That proves he wasn’t singling out Bygum just to get some public support and to look tough.

 

Do you want everybody to stick rigidly to all laws... Have you ever driven over 70mph on a motorway? We all have our own standards on what’s right and wrong without having to read the manual mate.

You said their level, I was merely asserting what their level was. It was nothing like the question Stan asked me that’s now been dealt with.

 

They’ve revoked the citizenship of dozens of Jihadi Freedom fighters. The fact that this one has been dragged through the media is not Javid’s fault.

 

I still don’t get how a British girl, born in Britain, who only has a British passport is another country’s problem to deal with. Especially the country she went to help destroy.

Has Javid told Canada that Jack is their problem given he does actually have dual citizenship? If not it will no doubt be on his to do list. Javid is on the case.

 

They don’t comment on individual cases. They happily leak information on individual cases that will hopefully generate rock hard headlines.

 

No but I’d like the government to stick to international laws if it’s contravened them. The level comment was at Ginge for constantly dragging himself down to that.

It was quite a similar question. Neither were particularly ‘bad’ but I’ll opt for not losing it over something so innocuous.

 

Have they?

 

No.

The secret squirrels told the media.

 

The Home Office have said they won’t leave somebody stateless, so... what have they done to contravene international law then?

Refusing to send a black cab to pick her up from Syria does not count.

 

Her Lawyer told the media.

 

Ok

 

I did say ‘if’. I’m not professing to be an expert on international law. We have a resident expert for that watching the thread 18 hours a day fortunately.

I’m not denying she’s ****ed it and have said we should only do what we are obliged to do. If that’s the case then fine. I get the impression something will come out down the line showing we’ve erred somewhere on this.

 

She doesn’t have dual citizenship. In the rush to look rock hard Javid and The Gang forgot to check that.

 

My guess is she’ll end up with an easier time and sentence because of Javid’s actions. Just my guess.

 

If she had valid means to travel and arrived on sovereign territory I’ve got no doubt that the law would be dealing with her, she wouldn’t be pushed out the door by a security guard.

If this outrage all stems from the fact that we won’t go and retrieve her or her child from the camp then I can’t see anybody really giving a **** about that, can you?

 

Then she’s not stateless then. They only needed reasonable grounds to propose she could obtain dual citizenship, to make the call.

 

My guess is she’ll be brown bread before it gets to that and some posters (not aimed at Tel) will consider it another great victory.