ISIS people returning thread - no Lisa Smith talk (21/12/19)

seamus

Feisar wrote: »

Sometimes you gotta ask "what would Putin do?"

Become a dictator, have all of your political and financial enemies killed or brought into line, invade foreign territories, brutalise and torture prisoners and minorities and attempt to destabilise and incite hatred in democratic countries?

Not sure how that would help here though.

gmisk

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The only solution then is to put every Muslim on a no fly list. Because that's basically the only way to stop a disaffected Muslim teenager or any Muslim flying to the middle east to join a terrorist group.

I'd love to see the Liberal Left's reaction to that!

Ok this is bizarre.
So you are going to ban an entire religion from traveling anywhere?....talk about tarring everyone with the same brush, you honestly dont see how that is problematic?

You would have hoped irish people might have learned a little bit down the years about lumping groups of people in together "no dogs, no blacks, no irish".
During the troubles would you have banned irish catholics from travelling to the uk, in case they were in the RA?



BTW the woman in this case can f#ck off back to Syria.

mcmoustache

seamus wrote: »

How can they charge her if she's not resident in the UK and not a citizen? They can't.

This is an own-goal by the UK. Unless they're planning to illegally pick up people and bring them in for extrajudicial punishment like the Americans do, they've basically decided that it's easier to ignore ISIS members than punish them.

I had assumed that she had been a UK citizen prior to being stripped of said citizenship.

My thoughts are that unilaterally stripping citizenship without due process is wrong, regardless of the crime committed. I had assumed that she was a British citizen who joined ISIS and on that assumption, I thought that the right thing to do would be to arrest her on her return, charge her and if found guilty, sure, strip her of citizenship and send her on her way.

shaunr68

At least one, if not all three of these girls were indeed groomed and radicalised....by their own parents. They were raised as Jihadis.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6704819/Father-ISIS-bride-says-pregnant-jihadi-19-poses-no-threat.html

"Boo hoo we've been badly treated, oh by the way death to America, stone the infidels and behead those who insult Islam".

These people regard anyone who isn't like them as subhuman, fit only for slavery or death. That's the very epitome of fascism.

ToBeFrank123

gmisk wrote: »

Ok this is bizarre.
So you are going to ban an entire religion from traveling anywhere?....talk about tarring everyone with the same brush, you honestly dont see how that is problematic?

You would have hoped irish people might have learned a little bit down the years about lumping groups of people in together "no dogs, no blacks, no irish".
During the troubles would you have banned irish catholics from travelling to the uk, in case they were in the RA?



BTW the woman in this case can f#ck off back to Syria.

I didn't say that. If you reread the thread, you would see Boggles was claiming the UK was culpable for her going and joining ISIS. I asked what should they have done, ban every Muslim from travelling? Which of course is plainly ridiculous, as is blaming the UK for her radicalization and travelling to Syria.

gmisk

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I didn't say that. If you reread the thread, you would see Boggles was claiming the UK was culpable for her going and joining ISIS. I asked what should they have done, ban every Muslim from travelling? Which of course is plainly ridiculous, as is blaming the UK for her radicalization and travelling to Syria.

My apologies I only really read your post.

I think the UK/Europe has a clear issue when it comes to extreme muslim clerics etc, they seem to almost be allowed to stay indefinitely in UK/EU despite their actions (just look how long Abu Hamza managed to hang around for - he should have been f#cked on first plane back to Egypt)

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Here is the report on the back of it. If you have time to read it.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmhaff/135/135.pdf

Basically the school was targeted, 4 made it to Syria - 2 are now dead, 5 subsequently had to be put on no fly lists.

There is a lot of unanswered questions stemming from the whole debacle.

The school lawyer-ed up and the police say it's still an active investigation.

Putting down anything that relates to the school here. On phone so apologies for formatting.

63. We took evidence from Mark Keary, Principal, and Alison Brannick, former Deputy Principal, of the Bethnal Green Academy. This is the school attended by four young women who left the UK to travel to Syria to join Daesh, one in December 2014, followed by three more in February 2015. Mark Keary told us that the Prevent Duty focussed on the stereotype of an angry young man, but that the stereotypes needed to be updated to include the evolving nature of radicalisation, with young girls being groomed to travel to Syria.82 Alison Brannick agreed, adding that Prevent materials needed to move away from the stereotype that young people may be radicalised because they have been previously involved in criminality, and have that as a vulnerability.83 We believe that an additional concern is that the Prevent materials do not show sufficient understanding of the lure for young girls raised in conservative homes, with little freedom, who then choose to embrace their notion of faith and travel to a war zone.

The Prevent Strategy
46. Prevent is one of the four elements of CONTEST, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy. It aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. It has three specific strategic objectives:
• To respond to the ideological challenge of terrorism and the threat faced from those who promote it.
• To prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and ensure that they are given appropriate advice and support.
• To work with sectors and institutions where there are risks of radicalisation that need to be addressed.
The Home Office says that it works with the police, local authorities, and a wide range of government departments and community organisations to deliver the Prevent strategy. The second Prevent objective is delivered through Channel, which was first piloted in 2007 and then rolled out across England and Wales in April 2012. The programme uses a multi-agency approach to protect vulnerable people by: identifying individuals at risk; assessing the nature and extent of that risk; and developing the most appropriate support plan for the individuals concerned.

I can’t quote it all but found this interesting

55. The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”. We have heard calls for Prevent to be brought to an end (although notably not from Inspire or the families of those who had travelled to join Daesh

I still haven’t come across what the police apologised to the parents for.

seamus

mcmoustache wrote: »

I had assumed that she had been a UK citizen prior to being stripped of said citizenship.

My thoughts are that unilaterally stripping citizenship without due process is wrong, regardless of the crime committed. I had assumed that she was a British citizen who joined ISIS and on that assumption, I thought that the right thing to do would be to arrest her on her return, charge her and if found guilty, sure, strip her of citizenship and send her on her way.

I expect that would a difficult sell though. She gets charged and convicted of membership of ISIS and the UK then just sends her to Bangladesh.

I think people would expect some prison time at the very least.

And even then, deporting her to Bangladesh might prove tricky, since she didn't "come" from there.

Stripping her citizenship is a pure populist move to satisfy the rags. It doesn't actually punish her or solve any problems for the UK. If they had let her back in, they could have stuck her in jail for life. That's a proper punishment. Bangladesh might not be the Ritz, but I'll take it over life imprisonment every day of the week.

CosmicJay

end of the road wrote: »

only in cases where there is dual citizenship can britain or any country remove citizenship. and as i understand it, that is only where another country is the birth country. so given this particular gihadi was born in britain, even if she has another citizenship britain is unlikely to be able to strip her of british citizenship if what i understand is correct.

So this was wrong.

Neyite

Rodin wrote: »

The Dutch should shut the door on her too

They don't even have to, she will fail to meet the criteria for citizenship in several areas.

Her only connection to The Netherlands is that her husband is Dutch. The husband she married under Sharia law of Islamic State which had no legal recognition as a state. So in the eyes of the Dutch she's probably not legally married and even if they were, there's no automatic citizenship for spouses.

scamalert

Under Bangladesh law, a UK national like Ms Begum who is born to a Bangladeshi parent is automatically a Bangladeshi citizen. That means that such a person would have dual nationality.
However, their Bangladeshi nationality and citizenship lapses when they reach the age of 21, unless they make active efforts to retain it.
So, it is Ms Begum's age, 19, that is likely - in part - to have given Home Office lawyers and the home secretary reassurance there was a legal basis for stripping her of her UK citizenship.


issue solved.

Perifect

seamus wrote: »

Become a dictator, have all of your political and financial enemies killed or brought into line, invade foreign territories, brutalise and torture prisoners and minorities and attempt to destabilise and incite hatred in democratic countries?

Not sure how that would help here though.

Apart from maybe the dictator bit, that describes Britain and it's leaders from the recent past!

And finally I found the part about why the police apologised to her parents. I’ll let you all make up your own minds about what they apologised for.

Support to families


93. We were pleased to hear from Alison Brannick, former deputy principal of the Bethnal Green Academy, that there appears to be a clearer process in place at that school. She told us that concerns are first referred to the safeguarding team, who assess the situation and then make a referral to a social inclusion panel, where a decision is made on the next steps to support the student. The school also worked with the local authority’s parents’ advice centre, organising sessions for parents to help them better understand the risks of extremism, and identify signs of radicalisation, so they knew exactly what support was available if needed.118 Witnesses representing the East London Mosque, who denied any knowledge of radicalisation and were unable to clarify the ideology of their Imams, told us that they were approached for support by the families of the girls from the Bethnal Green Academy when they felt “let down by the police”, and who were “very vulnerable and needed a lot support”.119

Neyite

seamus wrote: »

Stripping her citizenship is a pure populist move to satisfy the rags. It doesn't actually punish her or solve any problems for the UK.

Yes, it's just a PR stunt really. The Home Secretary has his eye on the Tory leadership position once May burns herself out over Brexit and to position himself as the next PM. If the family don't appeal the decision it stands and she's not the UK's problem, if they do and they lose the appeal, again it's not their problem. If they win the appeal then there will be a public outcry at her returning given what views she espouses. The UK can then stir up the anti-immigration support of Brexit again, and use the ruling as justification to detach from the ECHR in order to strip the citizenship from anyone of dual citizenship (pretty much anyone who's not white British and of wholly British descent) they like for whatever reasons they like, without a trial, proof or conviction.



And it's taken Brexit and the hames the Government is making of that off the front pages, so I'm sure they will do their best to keep this running for as far into the next 6 weeks or so as possible.

inforfun

Rodin wrote: »

The Dutch should shut the door on her too

There are elections in may in The Netherlands so she better wait till those are done.
Before the elections all political parties will be in favour to deny her entry.

Billy86

backspin. wrote: »

I'm not sure even you believe that.

Hard not to when they prove it week in, week out.

Beyond the fact that he is for so many things his supporters claimed to be against which is what was supposed to make him stand out as "not like the others" that they seemingly no longer care about in the least (Wall St. & corporate interests, drone usage, Saudi Arabia*, golfing, transparency and of course corruption, to name a few) they literally do just go along with whatever lie Trump is spouting at the time (which he does about 15 times a day), even when it directly contradicts itself which happens so often there is a subreddit dedicated to nothing but that.

To be honest the whole Republican side of US politics, or the country in general, have lost their marbles. Between Alabama coming within 1.7% (less than 22,000 votes) of having an actual open and proud pedophile as a US senator, and Iowa's senators out and out asking what the supposed "problem" with white supremacy is (to name just two) you really have to wonder what they're thinking.

ToBeFrank123

inforfun wrote: »

There are elections in may in The Netherlands so she better wait till those are done.
Before the elections all political parties will be in favour to deny her entry.

Very little chance of her being let in to The Netherlands. The Far Right is fairly mainstream there and letting someone like her in would give them a further boost.

I think this woman should take the hint - she's not wanted in Western Europe. Her values are not our values, she's made that clear repeatedly. We do not need a hardcore ISIS supporter living in our midst, no thank you. So she better get used to a life in a camp in the middle east or else move to Bangladesh.

I bet she feels like a fool for leaving the UK now.

Boggles

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

And finally I found the part about why the police apologised to her parents.

Here is a report on it, save you going through the Commissioners testimony.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/families-of-three-missing-syria-girls-demand-police-apology-10099196.html

Sorry the letter we intended to get through, didn’t get through. It is clear that failed. It was intended for them and failed and for that of course we’re sorry

There were seen as child victims back then, how the mood music can change in 4 short years.

The force also stressed they were being viewed as victims rather than terrorists and would not face jail if they came back. Sir Bernard said: “If they return home there are no terrorism issues here.

tretorn

I see one of the other girls who left with Begum was born in Ethiopia, thats good news for the UK, she can be stripped of her citizenship now too and head to Ethiopia.

Boggles

Boggles wrote: »

Here is a report on it, save you going through the Commissioners testimony.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/families-of-three-missing-syria-girls-demand-police-apology-10099196.html



There were seen as child victims back then, how the mood music can change in 4 short years.

Rehabilitation
96. Dr Marsden of Lancaster University told us in her written evidence that even though people who were once radicalised might wish to move away from extremism, it can be very difficult to do so, particularly if they are publicly known as extremists. They have to deal with factors like social stigma and family tension, less access to jobs as they are perceived as less desirable, possible ongoing contact from extremist groups, and likely emotional trauma. She stated: “To rehabilitate former extremists one must recognise that reintegration is a two-way process: society has to permit and support the individual’s rehabilitation as much as the person has to want to do so.”120

Considering she has shown no signs of wanting to be rehabilitated I can’t justify her being allowed back. Sorry, but she is an educated young woman and was capable of knowing right from wrong. She chose her path.

timthumbni

tretorn wrote: »

I see one of the other girls who left with Begum was born in Ethiopia, thats good news for the UK, she can be stripped of her citizenship now too and head to Ethiopia.

Bon voyage to her too.

tretorn

Neyite wrote: »

Yes, it's just a PR stunt really. The Home Secretary has his eye on the Tory leadership position once May burns herself out over Brexit and to position himself as the next PM. If the family don't appeal the decision it stands and she's not the UK's problem, if they do and they lose the appeal, again it's not their problem. If they win the appeal then there will be a public outcry at her returning given what views she espouses. The UK can then stir up the anti-immigration support of Brexit again, and use the ruling as justification to detach from the ECHR in order to strip the citizenship from anyone of dual citizenship (pretty much anyone who's not white British and of wholly British descent) they like for whatever reasons they like, without a trial, proof or conviction.



And it's taken Brexit and the hames the Government is making of that off the front pages, so I'm sure they will do their best to keep this running for as far into the next 6 weeks or so as possible.

It isnt a PR stunt at all.

There are very serious concerns in the UK regarding immigration, we dont understand that here because we dont have huge numbers of Muslims and we havent had people slashed to death on O Connell bridge or had children blown to bits in the Point because some Muslim cleric thinks music is sinful.

I think I read somewhere that about one eighth of the population of London is Muslim now, you have entire schools who are teaching Muslim ideology alongside the prescribed curriculum and in some cases instead of the curriculum. You have schools entirely funded by the British Government following religious customs like complete segregation of children from the age of eight years, ie girls taught at that age that they are second class citizens.

The general public in Britain if asked would want this woman deprived of any opportunity to come back to the UK. the decision to deprive her of her citizenship has nothing to do with Brexit and nothing to do with her skin colour. She is a dangerous radicalised menace and the British public need to be protected from her, the publics rights to be protected from her and her ilk trump any rights she has to come back to the UK and if she ends up in Bangladesh it will be the most effective way of getting through to other Muslims, adapt to the British way of life or else take yourself off to a Muslim country where you can live your lives according to Muslim ideology, these are the choices you have and we have pandered to you at our cost for too long now.

Boggles

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Considering she has shown no signs of wanting to be rehabilitated I can’t justify her being allowed back. Sorry, but she is an educated young woman and was capable of knowing right from wrong. She chose her path.

I have yet to see a grooming case where a child's "education" was used as a defense.

Could you point to one?

It would not be unheard that victims of grooming would still "love" the people that groomed them and want no harm to come to them.

Brass tacks is the cops fooked up, then lied about it and then had to apologize for it. Small comfort.

Just to be clear, this wasn't a couple of normal Bobbies casually interviewing the girls, this was a specific counter terrorism task force with the remit of stopping grooming and radicalization.

The school knew exactly what was happening but didn't bother informing the parents either.

But to get back to your original point

She was born to a mother and father and raised by a mother and father. Where the **** is their parental responsibility in all this?

I imagine it would have kicked in if either the school or the police had informed them.

tretorn

The parents probably wouldnt have co operated with the Police anyway.

Muslims as a group dont intereact with general society and they would go to Imans with concerns rather than to the Police.

Its not like the school or Police would be dealing with receptive people.

And the police or counter terrorism police would have been accused of racial profiling if they had called personally to the parents, they couldnt win no matter what they did.

end of the road

shaunr68 wrote: »

I agree. If the child was to be brought back alone to the UK it should be taken into care and put up for adoption with the stipulation that it should be adopted by a secular family. No way should we allow the grandparents to raise the next generation of jihadis.

the grand parents must be found suitible or not on their own merrits, not on the basis of religion. stipulating that a child can only be adopted by a secular family would quite likely constitute religious discrimination and rightly so.

jackofalltrades

seamus wrote: »

Stripping her citizenship is a pure populist move to satisfy the rags. It doesn't actually punish her or solve any problems for the UK.If they had let her back in, they could have stuck her in jail for life. That's a proper punishment. Bangladesh might not be the Ritz, but I'll take it over life imprisonment every day of the week.

I think it's very easy these days to write-off decisions you don't like as populist.

No NHS, no generous benefits, no nice/cheap housing, close family/friends far away.
I'd definitely describe not being allowed to return to the modern, developed home that she grew up in and having to possibly live the rest of your life in a developing, strange country as a punishment.
A lot worse than the possible sentence she could have got on return.
Which I'm guessing would be a lot shorter than a life sentence.
That and the UK don't have to let an extremist back into the country.
It also sends a clear message to people who could be thinking about doing the same in future.
Not to mention the savings to the taxpayer and the benefit of not having a poisonous psychopath walking around.

tretorn

The child would be far better off reared within the extended family.

Adoption when its the last resort is one thing but children are definitely better off being reared by blood relatives. Life will be hard enough for this infant if he is separated from his mother and he should go to grandparents, Aunts and Uncles if they are willing to rear him.

Better a strange relative than a relative stranger.

ohnonotgmail

jackofalltrades wrote: »

I think it's very easy these days to write-off decision you don't like as populist.

No NHS, no generous benefits, no nice/cheap housing, close family/friends far away.
I'd definitely describe not being allowed to return to the modern, developed home that she grew up in and having to possibly live the rest of your life in a developing, strange country as a punishment.
A lot worse than the possible sentence she could have got on return.
Which I'm guessing would be a lot shorter than a life sentence.
That and the UK don't have to let an extremist back into the country.
It also sends a clear message to people who could be thinking about doing the same in future.
Not to mention the savings to the taxpayer and the benefit of not having a poisonous psychopath walking around.

No its a totally populist move only taken because this case made the headlines. they haven't seen fit to apply the same prohibition to others who went to ISIS

GinAndBitter

https://www.thesun.ie/news/3778254/isis-bride-shamima-begum-claddagh-ring/

She thinks it's unjust.

tretorn

The makers of the claddagh ring wont like this publicity.