Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Bethnal Green Girl
How many are screaming at the screen right now? She made her bed let her lie in it. Why should she be allowed back here?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by lankeela. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Canary42
/// Surely she's little different from Edward VIII with his admiration of Hitler - and we let him back into Britain after his visits to dear Adolf. ///
What a ridicules analogy to make, Edward V111 didn't leave Britain to join the Nazi Party.
She is a traitor and since capital punishment has now been banned, she shouldn't be allowed back to face trial, because we all know the outcome of that, since she is heavily pregnant.
As many have said leave her to find a home in a Muslim country, we don't want the likes of her here.
/// Surely she's little different from Edward VIII with his admiration of Hitler - and we let him back into Britain after his visits to dear Adolf. ///
What a ridicules analogy to make, Edward V111 didn't leave Britain to join the Nazi Party.
She is a traitor and since capital punishment has now been banned, she shouldn't be allowed back to face trial, because we all know the outcome of that, since she is heavily pregnant.
As many have said leave her to find a home in a Muslim country, we don't want the likes of her here.
can anyoone get the script of that article
I am not sure if anyone has been made stateless
they say they can
but as Jack Straw the Foreign Secretary commented when he had been wrong footed on international law - oops !
they didnt do an international law course when I was a law student
and I note treaties werent mentioned - but may have been in the lords debates - which dont have force of law ....
I am not sure if anyone has been made stateless
they say they can
but as Jack Straw the Foreign Secretary commented when he had been wrong footed on international law - oops !
they didnt do an international law course when I was a law student
and I note treaties werent mentioned - but may have been in the lords debates - which dont have force of law ....
But she was a child at 15 Murraymints and the law differs as she was classed as a child.
————-
Wrong. At the age of 14 she assumes full criminal responsibility.
Between 10-14 she has limited responsibility(for a jury to ponder) but in the eyes of the law she knew full well what she was doing and certainly had the wherewithal to gain entry to ISIS territory.
As I said earlier, let her seek sanctuary in a Muslim country, not here.
Saudi Arabia is quite draconian in its treatment of women so after ISIS it’d be like a holiday camp
Hi-de-Bye!
————-
Wrong. At the age of 14 she assumes full criminal responsibility.
Between 10-14 she has limited responsibility(for a jury to ponder) but in the eyes of the law she knew full well what she was doing and certainly had the wherewithal to gain entry to ISIS territory.
As I said earlier, let her seek sanctuary in a Muslim country, not here.
Saudi Arabia is quite draconian in its treatment of women so after ISIS it’d be like a holiday camp
Hi-de-Bye!
PP, from the link:-
Few people will be aware that the Government has the power to strip people of their British citizenship, even if they are British-born. Even fewer will know that the UK has emerged as the world leader in using citizenship deprivation as a counter-terrorism measure (Pillai, S and Williams G, Twenty-first century banishment: citizenship stripping in common law nations (I.C.L.Q. 2017, 66(3), 521-555)).
Few people will be aware that the Government has the power to strip people of their British citizenship, even if they are British-born. Even fewer will know that the UK has emerged as the world leader in using citizenship deprivation as a counter-terrorism measure (Pillai, S and Williams G, Twenty-first century banishment: citizenship stripping in common law nations (I.C.L.Q. 2017, 66(3), 521-555)).
Couldn't tell what this was from the title, so only just looked in.
No, of course she shouldn't return. She opted to go with her kids elsewhere, turned against decent society; therefore we are no longer responsible for her nor her family, and would be idiots to consider allowing return. Let her remain in the culture she approves of and where she clearly thinks she should be.
No, of course she shouldn't return. She opted to go with her kids elsewhere, turned against decent society; therefore we are no longer responsible for her nor her family, and would be idiots to consider allowing return. Let her remain in the culture she approves of and where she clearly thinks she should be.
I enjoy The AnswerBank because I usually get to see both sides of the argument; which is something I always try to do myself, however I think this case is different. I heard her interview on 5Live this morning. If I understood this correctly there are two reasons why she wants to return; one is for care for her baby and the other is that she is disillusioned with ISIS. She is not disillusioned because she thinks now thinks that they are evil but because ISIS have gone back on what they stand for. She seemed to be okay with them killing non-muslims but when the started torturing and killing muslims she's got the hump. I don't think that she deserves to be let back in... but I have a hunch that we will take her.
this is from Danny's erf about making someone stateless
" A stateless person also cannot be convicted under a country’s judicial process, a factor that has led to devastating consequences for inmates in the Guantánamo Bay detention centre. One of the reasons President Obama was unsuccessful in closing the facility was because of the challenge in resettling stateless citizens."
is almost completely wrong innit?
a stateless person is NOT immune from suit hur hur hur
and the Guantanamo men werent stateless
American law does NOT apply to outland american bases ( wow!) and he [obama] cdnt let them out because there was video of ex detainees telling others how to deceive and mislead the american authorities.....
" A stateless person also cannot be convicted under a country’s judicial process, a factor that has led to devastating consequences for inmates in the Guantánamo Bay detention centre. One of the reasons President Obama was unsuccessful in closing the facility was because of the challenge in resettling stateless citizens."
is almost completely wrong innit?
a stateless person is NOT immune from suit hur hur hur
and the Guantanamo men werent stateless
American law does NOT apply to outland american bases ( wow!) and he [obama] cdnt let them out because there was video of ex detainees telling others how to deceive and mislead the american authorities.....
a recent case on - can they cant they ( render someone stateless ) is here
http://
in the al-Jezza case the House of Lords said - no deffo - you cant make someone stateless
and the Home Secretary ( one theresa may ) said oh easy I will change the British Nationality Act so I can ....
and no one seems to have raised the point that this conflicts with treaty law
http://
in the al-Jezza case the House of Lords said - no deffo - you cant make someone stateless
and the Home Secretary ( one theresa may ) said oh easy I will change the British Nationality Act so I can ....
and no one seems to have raised the point that this conflicts with treaty law
