Ekona Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 1 hour ago, GranTurismoEra said: That will never happen here. Even stonecold serial killers are afforded a certain level of comfort. That sounds like third world jail. Thats why people are happy to reoffend if it gets them off the streets, 3 meals a day, free gym, a bed and increased criminal and law knowledge is a plus. You also make links in jail sometimes of the religious kind. Have you ever been to prison? Because I can promise you it’s not somewhere any sane person is happy to spend any time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 (edited) I am also thinking there might be bit of deja strudel in here and the "other" thread Edited February 23, 2019 by Jetpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nissanman312 Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 57 minutes ago, Ekona said: Have you ever been to prison? Because I can promise you it’s not somewhere any sane person is happy to spend any time. I have friends that have worked in prisons and youth detention places and based on what I've been told I would agree with that. That said can't be much worse than Syria where you find heads knocking around in your bin if you are in isis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I am somewhat split on this, but as others have mentioned we have to abide by the laws that we have created for ourselves. Retrospectively introducing a law for something because people hate an individual based on a TV interview and their actions is somewhat bizarre behaviour, but as the MPs that have split from Labour and Tory have said, Tories are now really right wing and are starting to behave with a mindset of such extreme groups rather than abiding by law. I am a bit on the fence with the whole 'child' thing. Of course technically she is in the eyes of the law but I don't agree that she is completely out of control of her own actions. The law here is daft, in that a child/juvenile is someone who is 17 years and 364 days old who is still deemed suggestible and growing up, but then two days later they are an adult that is fully responsible for all their actions - that in itself makes no sense at all. The real danger here is the source, Facebook, Google, YouTube etc. who have a blasé approach to content control - their platforms are being used to create these people yet they refuse to accept its their issue to deal with as it would cost their profit margins to control it. I guess my view is what if this was a 15 year old that killed someone here and fled abroad, would we not bring that person back and put them on trial? If she has done something illegal then in the same way now she is heading back its up to us to deal with our citizen in a court of law and punish/rehabilitate accordingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 3 hours ago, coldel said: I guess my view is what if this was a 15 year old that killed someone here and fled abroad, would we not bring that person back and put them on trial? If she has done something illegal then in the same way now she is heading back its up to us to deal with our citizen in a court of law and punish/rehabilitate accordingly. I think this is the point that the members on here who have supported the decision to revoke her citizenship are getting at. If someone commits murder, 15 or 50, they know the punishment (hence why the 15 bit is irrelevant) and its a pretty severe life imprisonment (however life be decided by the judge), a lot like that dude who fled the country when he killed his date in a speedboat accident, he didnt hang around because he knew he was f****d and if he comes back or gets bought back will rightly feel the full force of the law. It would seem at present, the reality is, not much will happen to her and if she did end up being prosecuted she will probably face a small custodial sentence at best, not forgetting the huge cost associated with that, so whats the point, leaving her there is punishment enough, adding to that, she wants "us" to go and extract her I guess what this really comes down to morally as individuals with other offences being bounded about as examples, how do you view terrorism, equal to murder, rape, child abuse etc or a minor offence like shop lifting, speeding, taking drugs etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilogikal1 Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 Definitely akin to speeding; no harm unless it goes wrong or involves other people... More seriously though, it depends on what you define as terrorism. Typically they tend to involve breaking others laws with a specific motivatio, so it depends on the individual act; murder for revenge is equivalent to murder for terrorism, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 2 hours ago, Jetpilot said: I think this is the point that the members on here who have supported the decision to revoke her citizenship are getting at. If someone commits murder, 15 or 50, they know the punishment (hence why the 15 bit is irrelevant) and its a pretty severe life imprisonment (however life be decided by the judge), a lot like that dude who fled the country when he killed his date in a speedboat accident, he didnt hang around because he knew he was f****d and if he comes back or gets bought back will rightly feel the full force of the law. It would seem at present, the reality is, not much will happen to her and if she did end up being prosecuted she will probably face a small custodial sentence at best, not forgetting the huge cost associated with that, so whats the point, leaving her there is punishment enough, adding to that, she wants "us" to go and extract her I guess what this really comes down to morally as individuals with other offences being bounded about as examples, how do you view terrorism, equal to murder, rape, child abuse etc or a minor offence like shop lifting, speeding, taking drugs etc But the point is, has she broken our laws at the time she left the country. If she did, then she comes back and goes to prison. If she hasn't (and it isnt clear at the moment if she has) then she comes back and doesn't go to prison. The failings here are not on her, its on this government to not have the proper law in place to deal with these people. It was clear people were leaving the country to go to Syria, but if she has sat in a hut for 4 years and done nothing else, then what do you charge her with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, coldel said: But the point is, has she broken our laws at the time she left the country. If she did, then she comes back and goes to prison. If she hasn't (and it isnt clear at the moment if she has) then she comes back and doesn't go to prison. The failings here are not on her, its on this government to not have the proper law in place to deal with these people. It was clear people were leaving the country to go to Syria, but if she has sat in a hut for 4 years and done nothing else, then what do you charge her with? Absolutely totally agree and exactly what i said in my first post, lets define and make it clear that fighting or supporting (imho) a terrorist regime will result in "x" regardless of whether you sat in a hut or not to avoid all the chat in the future! Edited February 23, 2019 by Jetpilot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 And how do you define a terrorist regime? And who decides? If you say it's any group that states openly they want to kill all people in a country, well we've already got laws against that so it's pointless. If you say it's any group that says they want to bring down a government, whoops suddenly all members of the opposition are guilty. If you say it's any person that says they want to bomb somewhere and kills loads of innocent people, well suddenly you've just criminalised most people who share a Britain First post on FB. Granted, that last one may not be so bad... But you can see the point of how hard it is to draft something like that. Ultimately the laws we do have now aren't that bad, and really we have to accept that as a civilised society sometimes we're going to have to wait for people to actually be in this country and do something against the laws we do have instead of trying to create new laws that could criminalise the innocent. You fund the security services correctly and hope they do a good job, and accept that life isn't always perfect. Small comfort if someone you love is killed by a terrorist I know, and it's only natural that rage and anger would change a person's viewpoint if that happened. I'm not saying it's the right answer, or the only one, but that's how I see things right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I see your point of course, but opening a can of worms to the definition of a terrorist regime bears no resemblance to this, we all know Isis are a terrorist regime and i feel pretty confident that such regimes have been well documented over the last half a century or more and we know who are they are and on the flip side so do they, they actively promote their terrorist label. As with many conversations in recent times the laws may be pretty dam good, but, there is no reason why they cant get better and clearer, for all us as law abiding and law breakers, nothing stands still, up until a few years ago we could all drive around on mobile phones knowing not much would happen, as times change so should the laws and this is no exception. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 You still need to define what one is, there’s no getting around that and tbh it’s nigh-on impossible to do much less obtain convictions based on it. Look how long certain hate preachers have been able to get away with things, it’s because the law had to be specific to not punish the innocent. Sinn Fein have been getting away with it for years... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 37 minutes ago, Ekona said: You still need to define what one is, there’s no getting around that and tbh it’s nigh-on impossible to do much less obtain convictions based on it. Look how long certain hate preachers have been able to get away with. Personally we dont need to define anything, they are well known and recognised as terrorist regimes by varying governments and sure they will keep up to speed in whom they define as such. Absolutely, a disgrace, but you can thank the ecj for not allowing us to deport certain individuals (well documented), hopefully we can decide for ourselves in future, fingers crossed. Did you get the strudel ref? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 I did Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stutopia Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 It’s all well and good not bothering to define things for the angry mob, their only due process is to find the furl for flaming torches and already supply of pitchforks. Once you start having legal ramifications, you can’t just screech and point. Once Brexit happens and all the ECJ is finished and we just go back having common sense laws, at least we’ll be able to deport her back to errr... ...the U.K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 24, 2019 Share Posted February 24, 2019 My point is, we dont need to define Isis, its well defined, along with other terror regimes over the last few decades, I am sure we could all name more than a few well recognised, established and defined regimes of our generation and more. I understand your reluctance to agree when the leader of your chosen party is happy to side up alongside varying terror regimes, lay wreaths at their graves etc, hell Labour even released one to go home. No one has mentioned deporting, removing someones citizenship when they have left of their own free will knowing the consequences (if made law) is an entirely different topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 I think the question re parents and how they would feel was answered if the news i heard on the radio today is to be believed, well 50% anyway, by all accounts her father agrees with the decision to revoke her citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeeZ Posted February 25, 2019 Share Posted February 25, 2019 Why don't we have a referendum to decide, that will give everyone two years to make a decision. Then once the decision has been made she can always appeal, as she may not want to come here by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The G Man Posted March 2, 2019 Share Posted March 2, 2019 (edited) What makes “most of us” different from ISIS, is the fact that we will not vilify those that have different views, we will accept that they’re are different views but we will not offer cruel and unusual punishment, especially to our own citizens. We will execute the rule of law, we will recognise the rights and safeguards that we hold dearly, we will not vilify children who, are now a few years older and proclaim that they are terrorists, without exhausting the rule of law. well that was what I was taught Edited March 2, 2019 by The G Man Unusual, rather than excessive Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TT350 Posted March 25, 2019 Author Share Posted March 25, 2019 Hmmm I dunno. Nick Abbot on LBC can be pretty harsh with people who don't agree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.