Former Soldier Charged For Fighting Against Isis

[Gromit]

The man joined Kurdish fighters who themselves had air cover from the French and the support of Britain. They fought ISIS in Syria.
He is now being prosecuted for terrorism.

Isn’t this nonsense? And a waste of money?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/14/former-soldier-faces-prosecution-for-fighting-against-isis

[Peter Pedant]

anything good in the answer removed ?

[Mamyalynne]

It seems the Enlistment Act has proved a little toothless.

//Unlike some other countries, Britain does not have an effective law prohibiting its citizens from fighting for foreign armies.

There is an obscure piece of legislation still on the statute books - the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 - which ostensibly makes it illegal for British citizens to join the armed forces of a country fighting a state at peace with Britain.

But this proved to be embarrassingly ineffective when prosecutors attempted to stop British volunteers from fighting in the Spanish Civil War in the 1930s.//

Source (2014)

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/channel-4-news/british-citizens-israeli-army_b_5633939.html

[-Talbot-]

it is ( and was) unlawful for someone to sign up to fight for anyone besides Queen Elizabeth


Where's the link to back that up, PP?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Interesting - Huffington Post, eh? Take that, PP.

[vetuste_ennemi]

It's Newmanoid against Peterson all over again.

[Peter Pedant]

typical AB compromise
there is an Act and there isnt an Act

normal night on AB- OK boys go ahead

[Baldric]

PP @ 21:35, what on Earth is your problem? apart from stupidity?

[vetuste_ennemi]

No stupidity involved at all, just a normal night on PP.

[Gromit]

// the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 makes it illegal for British citizens to join the armed forces of a country fighting a state at peace with Britain. //

Don’t think the self proclaimed Islamic State, can be described as ‘at peace with Britain’. And they are not really a State, so the Enlistment Act does not apply.

[vetuste_ennemi]

//They are not really a State, so the Enlistment Act does not apply.//

A hit, a palpable hit! And that from a most unexpected source.

This shrewd observation is the case for more elasticity in the formulation of law and the allowance of broader latitude to its interpreters.

Old paradigms see Law as a method of adjudicating disputes between individuals, or between individuals and the state. The new paradigm needs to see Law as an instrument for constructive social change,

[jno]

He's not being charged with fighting for the wrong monarch. He's being charged under terrorism legislation with attending terrorist training. He might get off by claiming it was really freedom-fighter training, but I hope he has a good lawyer.

[youngmafbog]

I'm with AH on this one, need to see how it pans ut and the full story.

[dannyk13]

From the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870:-
//any foreign state at peace with Her Majesty, and in this Act referred to as a friendly state//
Are we at peace with ISIS? I think not.

[jno]

No government will ever acknowledge Isis as a state at all, peaceful or otherwise.

[youngmafbog]

Isn't that why they used the term 'so called' before Islamic State?

[ToraToraTora]

PP, I know you wanted to join the debate here and I know you tried to put up some sensible points. The problem is, is that that , is so rare among all your drivel, riddles and veiled insults that, like the boy who cried wolf, no one will take you seriously and most won't even try and decipher it.

[jno]

Just so, ymb

[jno]

Like your mockney, then, TTT?

[ummmm]

You're a fine one to talk TTT, talking in rhyming slang and butcher's talk. Practise what you preach.