• We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies from this website. Read more here

Politics Today

lamrobhero

Active member
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
1,303
Location
Hangingstone Hill
Interesting that some support arbitrary exexutive action against fellow citizens and want to deny citizens access to due process - if you allow this to be done you could be next.
 

Hermann

Well-known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
6,342
…..and the point that if asylum routes in Africa (or anywhere) were opened up in the way you and this MP suggests we would get flooded with applications still stands.
Its indicative of the high dudgeon we’ve got ourselves into, that Braverman can’t tell this virtue signalling MP the inconvenient truth that we are rationing asylum applications.
BTW, Labour won’t ever open up safe routes for asylum seekers either.
Then people will continue to travel here illegally, so that they can legally apply for asylum.
 

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
52,234
Location
Avoiding the Hundred
Interesting that some support arbitrary exexutive action against fellow citizens and want to deny citizens access to due process - if you allow this to be done you could be next.
Fanciful.

There is a legal process in train anyway
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,902
Then people will continue to travel here illegally, so that they can legally apply for asylum.
Although I’m not happy with illegal immigration, I’d rather we had that circa 50K to deal with (or not in our case!) than have hundreds of thousands of applications via so called safe routes.
 

manc grecian

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jun 24, 2004
Messages
22,244
Location
following through
Although I’m not happy with illegal immigration, I’d rather we had that circa 50K to deal with (or not in our case!) than have hundreds of thousands of applications via so called safe routes.
You'd rather people risk their lives crossing the
channel and give thousands to criminal gangs than try a viable alternative?
 

Rosencrantz

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,120
Location
Tiverton
Oh dear art. You really are a soft touch. She only has to say "I didn't know what I was doing. I'm a victim of trafficking" and you fall for it. And of course none of this was suggested by her when she first tried to get back here. allowed back.

This piece sums it up:

James Eadie KC, representing the government, said in written arguments that Begum had aligned with IS and stayed in Syria for four years until 2019.

Eadie said Begum left IS territory “only as the caliphate collapsed”, adding: “Even at that stage, the evidence demonstrates that she left only for safety and not because of a genuine disengagement from the group.”

He added: “When she did emerge, and gave multiple press interviews shortly before the secretary of state decided to deprive her of her citizenship, she expressed no remorse and said she did not regret joining [IS], acknowledging that she was aware of the nature of the group when she travelled.”


15 year olds in today's times are not the 15 year olds of our childhood. There is no evidence to support the proposition that she did not know what she was doing. All of the circumstantial evidence points in a different direction.

Her behaviour after going off to Syria and her vile comments are consistent with someone who had a very good idea indeed what she was doing. Until of course she decided to change her tune when realising it had all turned to worm in Syria. Strange that she has completely changed her dress code and presentation too.

Desperate stuff when you rely on JRM in support. :)

I don't want her here to stand trial with all the waste of money that will lead to. Enough squandered on her already. She did not want us and our values , she supported terrorism, showed no contrition (until it suited her) and I don't want her back here.
Presumably we should be lowering the voting age to at least 15 as well then? Or lower?
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,902
You'd rather people risk their lives crossing the
channel and give thousands to criminal gangs than try a viable alternative?
Stop infantilising people who are fully cognisant of the risks of a channel crossing yet choose to leave a safe country and do it anyway.
 

tavyred

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
13,902
Presumably we should be lowering the voting age to at least 15 as well then? Or lower?
What’s the age of criminal responsibility Rosey?
 

fred binneys head

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
22,055
Location
Loving the boy Stanno
You are just too soft art. Even gullible if I may be so bold.

She knew exactly what she was doing. She turned her back on the U.K. She supported a vile terrorist group. She is reported to have actively sought to recruit others to the cause and to have acted as an enforcer. She has shown no genuine contrition. The security services say she is a threat to national security. She now wants to come back to a country she hates only because it all went pear shaped for her in Syria. Keep her out.
Disagree entirely. If that was your 15 year old daughter that it happened to, you’d have a different view. She was a child. When my daughter was 15 she hated lots of things, including me 😉. Luckily she wasn’t groomed on the internet by a man twice her age who then convinced her to go to Syria, pimped her out to someone else twice her age, who got her pregnant three times and she had to watch those babies die. All before she was 19 years old.

We should never have rescinded her citizenship. I would let her back in tomorrow, to face the consequences of her actions, yes, but as a British citizen.
 

Rosencrantz

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 12, 2019
Messages
10,120
Location
Tiverton
What’s the age of criminal responsibility Rosey?
10 as no doubt you well know although that has nothing to do with what I posted. You do point out an inconsistency though. When is a child not a child? In order to vote you have to be 18, driving 17 (in most cases), smoking and sex is 16 and being a criminal just 10.

Going back to Ali's post, if 15 year olds of today are not 15 year olds of Ali's childhood, by implication more grown up and responsible, then why shouldn't the voting age come down?
 
Top