well funny u should say that when they found him he had a bottle of scnapps in his hand and a smile on his face
his french colleague tried to resusitate him but failed
co-incidentally Fritzs wallet went missing
Bye Shammina ...
- Thread starter ^woody^
- Start date
well funny u should say that when they found him he had a bottle of scnapps in his hand and a smile on his face
his french colleague tried to resusitate him but failed
co-incidentally Fritzs wallet went missing
Sponsored Links
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
He wasn't trying to resuscitate him.well funny u should say that when they found him he had a bottle of scnapps in his hand and a smile on his face
his french colleague tried to resusitate him but failed
co-incidentally Fritzs wallet went missing
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2016
- Messages
- 13,424
- Reaction score
- 540
- Country
The judgment is a bit of a non-sequitur. The correct outcome prevailed but with the wrong reasoning.
Now that its been established 15 year olds can make life changing decisions its time we offered them the right to vote.
This now gives the Home Sec the right to strip someone of their citizenship by decree, no recourse.
A good time to slip in tax rises whilst the RWR revel in a phantom victory.
Now that its been established 15 year olds can make life changing decisions its time we offered them the right to vote.
This now gives the Home Sec the right to strip someone of their citizenship by decree, no recourse.
A good time to slip in tax rises whilst the RWR revel in a phantom victory.
Sponsored Links
B
Bodd
She could go to Holland with her Husband.
It's a difficult one in that had the girl returned to the UK under her own fruition relatively early on, saying what a massive mistake she had made etc, that would have been a scenario in which you could favour the odds in terms of rehabilitation. However as the months and years roll by, surely there's an argument that rehabilitation becomes more of a challenge? So, on balance, I think the correct decision has been made.
I've always found some elements of free speech challenging. On the one hand, it's something I will always support. On the other, it always frustrated me that people like the hate preacher guy were able to spout their hatred for the west (sometimes in a very extreme manner) with what seemed like little or no legal retribution for years.
And isn't it strange that many of these people decry the west and everything in it, however they're quite happy to keep living in the west and to claim things like universal credit for their families, use the NHS if they fall ill etc etc. Funny that.
I've always found some elements of free speech challenging. On the one hand, it's something I will always support. On the other, it always frustrated me that people like the hate preacher guy were able to spout their hatred for the west (sometimes in a very extreme manner) with what seemed like little or no legal retribution for years.
And isn't it strange that many of these people decry the west and everything in it, however they're quite happy to keep living in the west and to claim things like universal credit for their families, use the NHS if they fall ill etc etc. Funny that.
D
durhamplumber
More comfortable then her blowing up UK citizens..Any day.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
There is no evidence that she was personally involved in terror related activities, nor any planning for terror related activities.
There are allegations, but she is being denied the opportunity to present her case.
There is suggestion that she was groomed as a 15 year old girl, and still a minor.
Why the h@ll do you think she went over there, to make tea and fancies for those doing the beheadings? Get real!
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
The case of Shamima Begum raises a new threshold of discrimination for UK.
That of second generation immigrants being deprived of their citizenship, and denied access to legal support, even if they have no other citizenship of any other country.
It has always applied to immigrants, that they can be deprived of their newly acquired British citizenship, (and they probably would have retained their birth citizenship) but to now extend that power to the second generation, born in UK, with no other citizenship of another country, is a frightening extension and abuse of that power.
It was also applied during the Windrush debacle, that children of immigrants were deported to a country that they had never visited for no other reason than their parents were immigrants.
That of second generation immigrants being deprived of their citizenship, and denied access to legal support, even if they have no other citizenship of any other country.
It has always applied to immigrants, that they can be deprived of their newly acquired British citizenship, (and they probably would have retained their birth citizenship) but to now extend that power to the second generation, born in UK, with no other citizenship of another country, is a frightening extension and abuse of that power.
It was also applied during the Windrush debacle, that children of immigrants were deported to a country that they had never visited for no other reason than their parents were immigrants.
- Joined
- 9 May 2020
- Messages
- 7,395
- Reaction score
- 136
- Country
Efforts to combat radicalisation and extremism must include the creation of just and fair societies as well as just and fair foreign and immigration policies
Governments must tread a careful line to not provide counter-terrorism responses that, at the end of the day, are counterproductive.
https://www.enar-eu.org/The-Case-of-Shamima-Begum-British-identity-and-terrorist-activity-under-the
Unjust and unfair societies, foreign and immigration policies risk the extension and expansion of terror activities.Governments must tread a careful line to not provide counter-terrorism responses that, at the end of the day, are counterproductive.
https://www.enar-eu.org/The-Case-of-Shamima-Begum-British-identity-and-terrorist-activity-under-the
D
durhamplumber
She joined an illegal organisation...The Supreme Court made a decision..Who knows better, you or them?The Court decided NO entry...Take it up with the Supreme Court.
D
durhamplumber
The Supreme Court decided she could not re-enter the UK.Fair to me..Her rights are less important than keeping the UK safe.Would set a dangerous precedent to allow her sort back in.You obviously think her potential re-hab is more important than her potential to kill.Hence why you disagree with the Supreme Court decision.
D
durhamplumber
.
D
durhamplumber
Justice and Fairness has been maintained by the Supreme Court...Keeping UK citizens safe trumps her needs and desires.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsored Links
